ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2026
Effectiveness evaluation of endometrial receptivity analysis for recurrent implantation failure and analysis of clinical factors affecting implantation window.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a major challenge in in vitro fertilization (IVF). The window of implantation (WOI) is the endometrium’s receptive period for embryos, and endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) is a potential intervention for transfer failure, requiring further validation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ERA in improving clinical outcomes for patients with RIF and to identify clinical factors that influence WOI displacement in this patient population.
methodsA total of 284 RIF patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) were divided into ERA (n = 131) and non-ERA (n = 153) groups; the ERA group was subclassified into WOI displacement (n = 87) and normal (n = 44) subgroups. Collected clinical data were compared across these groups to analyze differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes.
resultsResults showed ERA-guided personalized transfer significantly improved clinical pregnancy rate (88.55% vs. 32.03%) and embryo implantation rate (63.72% vs. 27.42%) versus non-ERA. WOI displacement was identified in 66.41% of ERA patients, with induced abortion history emerging as a potential correlative factor.
conclusionsERA effectively assesses endometrial WOI in patients with RIF and contributes to improved success rates of embryo transfer, supporting its clinical value as a personalized intervention for this patient cohort.
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.