Intentional endometrial injury vs no intervention or a sham procedure: Clinical pregnancy
Intentional endometrial injury may leads to higher clinical pregnancy (sensitivity analysis) compared with no intervention or a sham procedure (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Intentional endometrial injury vs no intervention or a sham procedure Clinical pregnancy (primary analysis) · infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI) Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | Low |
Intentional endometrial injury vs no intervention or a sham procedure Clinical pregnancy (sensitivity analysis) · infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI) Intentional endometrial injury may leads to higher clinical pregnancy (sensitivity analysis) compared with no intervention or a sham procedure (low certainty). Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 2.02 [1.67, 2.45] | 19 studies · 3184 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.