ArticleReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2025
Between evidence and expectation: a retrospective cohort study on chronic endometritis in repeated implantation failure and recurrent pregnancy loss.
Article in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing the Endometrial Factor in Recurrent Implantation Failure: From Established Diagnostics to Mechanism-Informed Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical efficacy and pregnancy outcomes of doxycycline plus medroxyprogesterone acetate therapy for chronic endometritis in women with recurrent reproductive failure: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic endometritis (CE) is frequently diagnosed in women with repeated implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), yet the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria and uncertainty about the timing of assessment and optimal treatment lead to open questions regarding its clinical relevance. This study aims to identify clinical risk factors that may guide targeted CE testing and to evaluate an ideal time point in the diagnostic pathway to offer CE assessment in women with RIF and RPL.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 392 women with RIF (no pregnancy after two or more transfers of good quality blastocysts) and 119 women with RPL (two or more subsequent miscarriages) who underwent endometrial biopsy with CD138 immunohistochemistry between 2016 and 2024 were analyzed. Odds ratios for presumed CE risk factors were calculated and CE prevalence and reproductive outcomes were assessed.
resultsWomen in the RPL group had a higher prevalence of CE compared to the RIF group (39.5 vs. 25.0%, p = 0.004). A history of cesarean delivery was associated with increased CE risk in the RPL group (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.14-7.84). CE prevalence did not increase with the number of failed embryo transfers in RIF (32.2% after two, 21.3% after three, 24.7% after ≥ 4 transfers; p = 0.349) or miscarriages in RPL (44.2% after two, 51.4% after three, 57.1% after ≥ 4 miscarriages; p = 0.518). When RIF patients treated for CE were compared with those with normal biopsy after both two and three previous embryo transfers, we found no differences in pregnancy outcomes.
conclusionsOur data did not confirm a significant increase in CE prevalence with an increasing number of failed embryo transfers or miscarriages. No relevant differences in the reproductive outcomes of RIF patients with normal biopsies compared with treated CE were found. While prior cesarean delivery may identify a subgroup of RPL patients who could benefit from targeted screening, the overall utility of routine CE testing and treatment remains limited. Standardized diagnostic criteria and further prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of CE in reproductive outcomes, with cautious consideration of uncritical antibiotic treatment.
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.