Comparison of pregnancy outcome in intrauterine insemination-candidate women with and without endometrial scratch injury: An RCT

other OA: gold CC-BY-NC-4.0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endometrial scratch injury is considered controversial in increasing the success rate of assisted reproductive technology. OBJECTIVE: To compare the pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing intrauterine insemination with and without an endometrial scratch. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 150 women referred to the Fatemieh Hospital, Hamadan, Iran who were candidates for IUI between December 2017 and December 2018 were randomly assigned into two groups (n = 75/each) with or without an endometrial scratch (as case and control groups, respectively). Women in both groups were in proper and identical protocol for IUI. Chemical and clinical pregnancies, abortion, and live birth rate, also pregnancy complications were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Chemical and clinical pregnancy rates were higher in the case than the control group (p = 0.25, p = 0.54, respectively). In the case group, the abortion and multiple gestation rates were 14.3% and 4.3%, respectively, while it was 5% in the control group (p = 0.60, p = 0.54 respectively). The endometrium thickness on day 21 was higher in the case group than the control (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Endometrial scratching in intrauterine insemination women is not associated with an increase in both clinical and clinical pregnancy rates, however, studies with a larger sample size are recommended to evaluate this intervention.
Full text 12,319 characters · extracted from pmc-nxml · 2 sections · click to expand

Section

According to the findings of the present study, endometrial scratching in IUI-candidate women is not associated with an increase in chemical and clinical pregnancy rates. Further studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to confirm or reject this intervention.

Coi Statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: pmc-nxml

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-23T09:30:01.253652+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:24:26.422845+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-14T19:30:52.867331+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0 · commercial use OK · attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine