Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

IF 14.8 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Human Reproduction Update Pub Date : 2023-11-02 DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmad014
Nienke E van Hoogenhuijze, Gemma Lahoz Casarramona, Sarah Lensen, Cindy Farquhar, Mohan S Kamath, Aleyamma T Kunjummen, Nick Raine-Fenning, Sine Berntsen, Anja Pinborg, Shari Mackens, Zeynep Ozturk Inal, Ernest H Y Ng, Jennifer S M Mak, Sachin A Narvekar, Wellington P Martins, Mia Steengaard Olesen, Helen L Torrance, Ben W Mol, Marinus J C Eijkemans, Rui Wang, Frank J M Broekmans
{"title":"Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis.","authors":"Nienke E van Hoogenhuijze, Gemma Lahoz Casarramona, Sarah Lensen, Cindy Farquhar, Mohan S Kamath, Aleyamma T Kunjummen, Nick Raine-Fenning, Sine Berntsen, Anja Pinborg, Shari Mackens, Zeynep Ozturk Inal, Ernest H Y Ng, Jennifer S M Mak, Sachin A Narvekar, Wellington P Martins, Mia Steengaard Olesen, Helen L Torrance, Ben W Mol, Marinus J C Eijkemans, Rui Wang, Frank J M Broekmans","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>A systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as 'low' for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96-1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99-1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03-1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause.</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.</p>","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"721-740"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10628489/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Reproduction Update","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmad014","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed.

Objective and rationale: This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis.

Search methods: A systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET.

Outcomes: Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as 'low' for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96-1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99-1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03-1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause.

Wider implications: This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
接受IVF/ICSI的女性子宫内膜刮伤:个体参与者数据荟萃分析。
背景:在IVF/ICSI治疗中,胚胎植入过程是限制成功率的步骤。有人建议子宫内膜刮伤可以改善这一过程,但目前尚不清楚这种手术是否会增加植入和活产(LB)的机会,如果会,应该为谁以及如何进行刮伤。目的和理由:这项个体参与者数据荟萃分析(IPD-MA)旨在回答接受IVF/ICSI的女性子宫内膜抓挠是否会影响LB的机会,以及这种影响在特定的女性亚组中是否不同的问题。在2000年偶然发现后,子宫内膜刮伤被认为可以改善胚胎植入。已经进行了大量的随机对照试验,结果相互矛盾。传统的荟萃分析受到研究内部和研究之间高度异质性、研究样本小以及许多试验的高偏倚风险的限制。此外,一些试验的数据完整性也受到质疑。因此,尽管进行了大量的随机对照试验和常规荟萃分析,但无法得出子宫内膜刮伤临床有效性的结论。IPD-MA方法能够克服其中的许多问题,因为它允许增加结果定义的一致性,可以过滤出有数据完整性问题的研究,由于对参与者特征的调整,能够更精确地估计真实的治疗效果,并且不必在传统的荟萃分析中做出必要的假设,并且因为它允许亚组分析。检索方法:系统文献检索确定了接受IVF/ICSI的女性子宫内膜刮伤的随机对照试验。邀请符合条件的研究的作者分享本IPD-MA的原始数据。对偏倚风险(RoB)进行了评估,并进行了完整性检查。主要结果为LB,以一阶段意向治疗(ITT)作为主要分析。二次分析包括治疗时(AT)和接受胚胎移植的妇女子集(AT+ET)。在AT+ET中分析了特定参与者特征的治疗协变量相互作用。结果:在37项已发表和15项未发表的随机对照试验中(7690名参与者),15项随机对照试验(14项已发表,1项未发表)共享数据。在数据完整性检查后,我们纳入了13项随机对照试验(12项已发表,1项未发表),代表4112名参与者。10/13随机对照试验的RoB评价为“低”。抓伤与不抓伤/假手术的一阶段ITT分析显示LB发生率有所改善(比值比(OR)1.29[95%CI 1.02-1.64])。AT、AT+ET和低RoB敏感性分析得出了相似的结果(分别为OR 1.22[95%CI 0.96-1.54];OR 1.25[95%CI 0.99-1.57];OR 1.26[95%CI 1.03-1.55])。治疗协变量相互作用分析显示,没有证据表明与年龄、既往胚胎移植失败次数、治疗类型或不孕原因存在相互作用。更广泛的含义:这是第一个基于4000多名参与者的IPD的荟萃分析,它表明子宫内膜刮伤可能会提高接受IVF/ICSI的女性的LB率。年龄、既往胚胎移植失败次数、治疗类型和不孕原因的亚组分析无法确定子宫内膜刮伤表现较好或较差的亚组。子宫内膜刮伤的时机可能对其有效性起到一定作用。应谨慎考虑在临床实践中使用子宫内膜刮伤,这意味着应就证据水平和不确定性向患者提供适当的咨询。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Human Reproduction Update
Human Reproduction Update 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
28.80
自引率
1.50%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Human Reproduction Update is the leading journal in its field, boasting a Journal Impact FactorTM of 13.3 and ranked first in Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (Source: Journal Citation ReportsTM from Clarivate, 2023). It specializes in publishing comprehensive and systematic review articles covering various aspects of human reproductive physiology and medicine. The journal prioritizes basic, transitional, and clinical topics related to reproduction, encompassing areas such as andrology, embryology, infertility, gynaecology, pregnancy, reproductive endocrinology, reproductive epidemiology, reproductive genetics, reproductive immunology, and reproductive oncology. Human Reproduction Update is published on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), maintaining the highest scientific and editorial standards.
期刊最新文献
Defects in mRNA splicing and implications for infertility: a comprehensive review and in silico analysis. Parental conditions, modifiable lifestyle factors, and first trimester growth and development: a systematic review. Fertility in transgender and gender diverse people: systematic review of the effects of gender-affirming hormones on reproductive organs and fertility Functional hypothalamic amenorrhoea and polycystic ovarian morphology: a narrative review about an intriguing association. Celebrating 30 years at Human Reproduction Update.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1