The Impact of Chronic Endometritis on Infertility: Prevalence, Reproductive Outcomes, and the Role of Hysteroscopy as a Screening Tool
other
OA: closed
public-domain-us
AI-generated summary
This prospective study found chronic endometritis in 2.8% of infertile women starting ART, with hysteroscopy showing low sensitivity for diagnosis, and variable impacts on pregnancy rates.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of chronic endometritis (CE) in infertile women, its impact on reproductive outcomes, and the accuracy of hysteroscopy as a screening tool for CE.
DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study.
PARTICIPANTS: Participants involved in this study were 514 asymptomatic patients with infertility.
SETTING: The review was conducted in a tertiary care center.
METHODS: The participants underwent a hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy (EMB). Antibiotics were given for cases of CE. We investigated the prevalence of CE in patients starting assisted reproductive technologies (ART) as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) in the ART cycle after hysteroscopy, EMB, and antibiotic treatment in cases of CE; the cumulative CPR in the subsequent 2 years after hysteroscopy and EMB; the sensitivity and specificity of hysteroscopy as a screening tool compared to EMB as the "gold standard" for diagnosing CE.
RESULTS: CE was identified in 2.8% of patients starting ART (11/393). CPRs did not differ significantly between patients with CE and the entire cohort of patients without CE in the subsequent ART cycle (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.09-2.02) or in the 2 years after EMB (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.16-1.97). In a matched control comparison (with matching for age, basal FSH, and cause of infertility), CPR in patients with CE did not differ in the subsequent ART cycle (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.09-1.61); however, their CPR in the 2 years after EMB was significantly lower (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.13-0.38). The sensitivity and specificity of hysteroscopy as a screening tool for diagnosing CE were 8.3% and 90.1%, respectively.
LIMITATIONS: Due to our cohort's low CE prevalence, we could not detect significant differences in CPRs.
CONCLUSION: CE is rare in our studied population of asymptomatic patients starting ART. Hysteroscopy cannot replace EMB for diagnosing CE.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Condition tags
MeSH descriptors
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: 2026-06-11T06:19:48.454388+00:00
- pubmed
- last seen: 2026-06-02T00:34:22.551143+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-05-14T19:30:52.867331+00:00
License: public-domain-us
· commercial use OK
· attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine