ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2024
Endometrial scratching and intralipid treatment-no general recommendations.
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Endometrial scratching (ES) and/or intravenous intralipid therapy (in cases of increased uterine natural killer cells, uNKs) are still conducted in several fertility centers as "add-on" treatments in patients undergoing ART, although convincing evidence for beneficial effects is lacking. Study design: In this retrospective study, associations between ES treatment or additional intralipid therapy and pregnancy and live birth rates of 1,546 patients undergoing 2,821 IVF-/ICSI-treatment cycles with fresh or frozen embryo transfers in a German fertility-center between 1st January 2014 and 31th May 2017 were analyzed. Results: Overall pregnancy and live birth rates for all 2,821 treatment cycles (468 cycles with ES) were 32.8% and 23.5%. There were no statistically significant differences in pregnancy or live birth rates between first treatment cycles with and without ES ( Conclusions: Our results reveal no evidence that ES increases the pregnancy or live birth rates in women undergoing their first or further IVF cycle with fresh or frozen embryo transfer. Intralipid treatment was also not beneficial. Even if patients explicitly ask for it, these procedures are not recommended outside of clinical studies.
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.