ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Impact of uterine cavity manipulation history on clinical and neonatal outcomes for
Article in American journal of translational research, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of prior uterine cavity procedures on clinical and neonatal outcomes in patients undergoing first-time in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with donor sperm (IVF-ET with DS).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 599 infertility patients receiving their first IVF-ET with DS. Patients were categorized into two groups: those with a history of uterine cavity operation group (n=457) and the group with no history (n=142). The former was further subdivided into curettage (n=67), hysteroscopy (n=292), and complex uterine operations (n=98). Primary outcomes included clinical pregnancy outcomes (implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate) and neonatal outcomes (gestational age, birth weight and length, incidence of being small for gestational age [SGA], large for gestational age [LGA], and preterm birth).
resultsNo significant differences were found in clinical pregnancy outcomes between the non-operative, curettage, and complex operation groups (all P > 0.05). However, the hysteroscopy group showed significantly lower miscarriage rates and higher implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis confirmed that hysteroscopy history was independently associated with improved pregnancy outcomes and reduced miscarriage rates, particularly in both age groups (< 35 and ≥ 35 years). No significant differences in neonatal outcomes were observed across all groups (all P > 0.05).
conclusionA history of hysteroscopy is associated with improved implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates, and a lower miscarriage rate in patients undergoing first IVF-ET with DS, without affecting neonatal outcomes.
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.