Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42703380›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Unexplained Recurrent Pregnancy Loss and Emerging Endometrial Biology: A Clinically Oriented Narrative Review.

Daichi Inoue

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Daichi InoueDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Nishitan ART Clinic Sakae, Nagoya, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A substantial proportion of couples who experience recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) complete a full guideline-based evaluation without an identifiable cause and are given a diagnosis of unexplained RPL. This category should be interpreted as the current limitation of clinically validated biological explanation rather than as the absence of underlying pathology, and it is within this diagnostic gap that interest in emerging endometrial biology has grown. Recent advances in endometrial biology have generated substantial interest in three closely related investigational domains: the endometrial microbiome, chronic endometritis (CE), and the endometrial immune milieu. Each domain has independently been associated with reproductive failure in observational research, and growing evidence suggests potential biological interactions among them. However, significant methodological heterogeneity, absence of standardized diagnostic criteria, and insufficient prospective validation currently preclude routine clinical implementation. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence in each of these domains and weighs their relevance to how unexplained RPL is managed. The review concludes that abnormalities involving endometrial microbial composition, chronic endometrial inflammation, and local immune dysregulation represent biologically plausible contributors to unexplained pregnancy loss in selected women, but that the principal barriers to clinical adoption are reproducibility, methodological standardization, and demonstrated clinical utility rather than biological plausibility alone. Major professional guidelines currently advise against routine use of these tests outside a research context. Emerging endometrial biology should therefore be interpreted as a framework for ongoing scientific inquiry, not as a basis for expanded clinical testing. Incorporation into routine practice will require standardized methodology, independent multicenter validation, and prospective demonstration that diagnosis and treatment improve clinically meaningful reproductive outcomes.

Indexed as

chronic endometritisendometrial immunityendometrial microbiomenarrative reviewrecurrent pregnancy lossreproductive failure

Identifiers

PMID42703380
PMCPMC13546614

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.