ReviewJBRA assisted reproduction2026
Chronic Endometritis and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A review of evidence and underlying mechanisms.
Review in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review aims to evaluate the relationship between chronic endometritis (CE) and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). A comprehensive, non-systematic search on the association between RPL and CE was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane, and SciELO databases, considering its pathophysiological mechanisms, diagnosis and pregnancy outcomes after treatment. The following terms were used as keywords: ("chronic endometritis" OR "endometrial inflammation" OR "subclinical endometritis") AND ("recurrent pregnancy loss" OR "recurrent miscarriage" OR "pregnancy outcomes"). Diagnostic hysteroscopy can be useful for identifying CE based on visual findings (e.g., edema and endometrial micropolyps). However, specificity and sensitivity vary, and it is ideally complemented by biopsy. The identification of plasma cells using the CD-138 marker is the most accurate method for diagnosing CE. Standardization is still needed for the number of plasma cells considered diagnostic and for the quality of CD-138. Tests such as next-generation sequencing and real-time PCR can identify microorganisms and aid in the development of appropriate treatments. Antibiotic regimens have shown efficacy in reducing CE and have a positive impact on pregnancy outcomes in women with RPL. In conclusion, CE appears to be a significant but often underdiagnosed contributor to RPL. Advancements in diagnostic techniques have improved the accuracy of CE identification. Evidence suggests that effective antibiotic treatment not only resolves CE but also enhances pregnancy outcomes in affected women.
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.