Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37276176›Full record

ArticleReproduction & fertility2023

A systematic review of transcriptomic studies of the human endometrium reveals inconsistently reported differentially expressed genes.

Evangeline R Walker, Mollie McGrane, John D Aplin, Daniel R Brison, Peter T Ruane

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproduction & fertility, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Cell type and region-specific transcriptional changes in the endometrium of women with RIF identify potential treatment targets.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Evangeline R WalkerE Walker, Reproductive Medicine, Central Manchester NHS Trust, Manchester , United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mollie McGraneM McGrane, Maternal and Fetal Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
John D AplinJ Aplin, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Group, Manchester University, Manchester, M13 0JH, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Daniel R BrisonD Brison, Reproductive Medicine, Central Manchester NHS Trust, Manchester , M13 9WL, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Peter T RuaneP Ruane, Maternal and Fetal Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9WL, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide analysis of gene expression has been widely applied to study the endometrium, although to our knowledge no systematic reviews have been performed. Here, we identified 74 studies that described transcriptomes from whole (unprocessed) endometrium samples and found that these fitted into three broad investigative categories; endometrium across the menstrual cycle, endometrium in pathology, and endometrium during hormone treatment. Notably, key participant information such as menstrual cycle length and body mass index was often not reported. Fertility status was frequently not defined and fertility-related pathologies, such as recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss, were variably defined, while hormone treatments differed between almost every study. A range of 1307-3637 reported differentially expressed genes (DEG) were compared in 4-7 studies in five sub-categories; (i) secretory vs proliferative stage endometrium, (ii) mid-secretory vs early secretory stage endometrium, (iii) mid-secretory endometrium from ovarian stimulation-treated participants vs controls, (iv) mid-secretory endometrium from RIF patients vs controls, and (v) mid-secretory eutopic endometrium from endometriosis patients vs controls. Only the first two sub-categories yielded consistently reported DEG between ≥3 studies, albeit in small numbers (<40), and these were enriched in developmental process and immune response annotations. This systematic review, though not PROSPERO registered, reveals that limited demographic detail, variable fertility definitions and differing hormone treatments in endometrial transcriptomic studies hinders their comparison, and that the large majority of reported DEG do not advance the identification of underlying biological mechanisms. Future studies should apply network biology approaches and experimental validation to establish causal gene expression signatures.

Identifiers

PMID37276176
PMCPMC10388686
OpenAlexW4379469391

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.