ArticlePeerJ2026
Comparison of treatment strategies on pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent chronic endometritis: a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ, 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
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the associations between different treatment regimens and pregnancy outcomes, histological cure rates of chronic endometritis (CE), adverse reactions, and adverse events in patients with persistent CE and pregnancy failure. Methods: This retrospective study included 125 patients diagnosed with CE, of whom 90 were diagnosed with persistent CE. Based on the treatment regimen, the patients were divided into three groups: Group A (antibiotic therapy only), Group B (antibiotic therapy + intrauterine infusion of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF)), and Group C (antibiotic therapy + intrauterine infusion and subcutaneous injection of rhG-CSF).The primary outcome measures were pregnancy outcomes (total pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, spontaneous abortion rate, live birth rate, and preterm birth rate), while secondary outcome measures included histological cure rate of CE, adverse reactions, and adverse events. Overall, biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates were calculated based on all patients in each group; spontaneous abortion and live birth rates were calculated based on clinical pregnancies; and the preterm birth rate was calculated based on live births. Results: (1) Pregnancy outcomes: The total pregnancy rate in Group C was higher than in Group A, with no difference between Groups B and C. Biochemical pregnancy rate was higher in Group B than Group C, with no significant differences between other comparisons. Clinical pregnancy rate was higher in Group C than Group A, with no differences between other groups. Group C had the lowest spontaneous abortion rate and highest live birth rate. Preterm birth rates in Groups B and C were lower than in Group A, with no difference between B and C. Group C had the lowest spontaneous abortion rate and the highest live birth rate. Preterm birth rates in Groups B and C were lower than in Group A, with no difference between Groups B and C. (2) Factors associated with spontaneous abortion: Multivariate analysis showed Groups A and B were associated with higher odds of spontaneous abortion than Group C, and increasing age was also associated with higher odds of spontaneous abortion. (3) Histological cure rate of CE: Post-treatment, Groups B and C had higher cure rates of CE than Group A, with no difference between B and C. (4) Adverse reactions and adverse events: Subchorionic hematoma and placental adhesion were higher in Group A than Group C, no differences between other groups. No ectopic pregnancies or neonatal malformations occurred. Conclusion: rhG-CSF combination therapy was associated with better pregnancy outcomes in persistent CE patients,including higher pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates, and a lower spontaneous abortion rate. Continuous use of rhG-CSF may be associated with better outcomes, but its potential clinical benefit and safety require validation through larger 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.