ReviewHealth science reports2026
Determining a Treatment Regimen With Optimal Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Endometritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Chronic endometritis (CE) negatively impacts pregnancy outcomes. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of various treatment regimens on pregnancy outcomes in women with CE. Methods: We performed a systematic review followed by an NMA in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The primary outcome indicator in the network meta-analysis was the live birth rate, with secondary outcome including clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and early miscarriage rate. Results: A comprehensive search yielded 2290 articles, of which 24 trials fulfilled the eligibility requirements for inclusion. Out of these, 14 studies were incorporated into the network meta-analysis to assess the pregnancy outcomes in women with CE. For live birth outcomes, antibiogram-guided treatment had the largest surface score under the cumulative sorting curve, but the results from the network meta-analysis indicated that no treatment improve live births in women with CE. The reports on ongoing and clinical pregnancy outcomes revealed significant findings regarding the effectiveness of Doxycycline plus Prednisone and Nitroimidazole plus Quinolones. Specifically, both treatment combinations significantly enhanced the chances of sustained pregnancy (RR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.12-2.96 and RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.03-3.18, respectively) and clinical pregnancy (RR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.11-2.44 and RR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.03-2.10, respectively) in women with CE. Conversely, other treatment options failed to demonstrate any improvement in sustained pregnancy and clinical pregnancy outcomes. In the report focusing on early miscarriage outcomes, none of the treatments examined showed a statistically significant reduction in the rate of miscarriage. Conclusion: Current evidence from this network meta-analysis does not demonstrate that any single antibiotic regimen significantly improves live birth rates in women with CE. While secondary outcome analyses suggest potential benefits of combining antibiotics with prednisone or specific dual-antibiotic regimens for clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, these exploratory findings require cautious interpretation and validation through large-scale RCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.