ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2024
Evaluation of endometrial receptivity in recurrent pregnancy loss and recurrent implantation failure.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pregnancy Loss History Is Associated with Systemic Involvement and Disease Activity in Women with Behçet's Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Role of hyaluronan in endometrial receptivity: key insights for implantation and reproductive success.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Review
- MicroRNA Signatures in Endometrial Receptivity-Unlocking Their Role in Embryo Implantation and IVF Success: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Anti-Adhesive Podocalyxin Expression Is Disrupted in Recurrent Implantation Failure.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The cause of implantation defects in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) has not been clearly established. We aimed to evaluate the immunohistochemical changes in HOXA-11, β1 integrin, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), cluster of differentiation 44 (CD44), and extracellular matrix protein 1 (ECM1) molecules during the receptive endometrial period in patients with RIF and RPL. Materials and Methods: This study was retrospectively conducted at a university hospital. After the exclusion of cases with pathology that may cause a change in the level of receptors in the endometrium, biopsies performed during the receptive period were selected, and the patients were categorized into RPL (n=15), RIF (n=16), control (n=16) groups. All preparations were immunohistochemically stained for HOXA-11, β1 integrin, FAK, CD44, and ECM1. Results: HOXA-11 and β1 Integrin expression changes were similar between the RIF and control groups. However, FAK expression was significantly increased in the RIF group (p<0.01). Additionally, ECM1 and CD44 expressions were significantly decreased in the RIF group compared with the control group (p<0.01). There was no significant difference in the endometrial staining of HOXA-11, FAK, and ECM1 in patients with a history of RPL. However, β1 Integrin and CD44 levels were significantly decreased in the RPL group compared with the control group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Implantation is a complex process, and altered adhesion mechanisms involved in endometrial receptivity may be related to defective implantation in patients with RIF and RPL. Among the adhesion molecules, the expression of CD44, β1 integrin, FAK, and ECM1 molecules varies in inappropriate implantation compared with the normal population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.