Endometrial injury vs control: Miscarriage per woman randomised (studies at low risk of selection bias and other bias)
Endometrial injury showed no clear difference in miscarriage per woman randomised (studies at low risk of selection… compared with control (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Endometrial injury vs control Miscarriage per woman randomised (studies at low risk of selection bias and other bias) · women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques Endometrial injury showed no clear difference in miscarriage per woman randomised (studies at low risk of selection… compared with control (moderate certainty). Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.88 [0.68, 1.13] | 8 studies · 4402 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) 2021 · 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.