Scratching beneath 'The Scratching Case': systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the back door for evidence-based medicine

Carlos Simón, J. Bellver
In: Human Reproduction · 2014 · vol. 29(8) , pp. 1618–1621 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deu126 · PMID:24903203 · W2137488279
article OA: bronze CC0 ⤵ 4 in-corpus citations
📄 Open PDF View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-09 ⓘ

This paper analyzes methodological flaws and plausibility issues in endometrial scratching research, highlighting how over-reliance on inadequate data can dilute evidence-based medicine.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Endometrial scratching or injury was first suggested a decade ago as a simple intervention to improve endometrial receptivity in patients undergoing ART. More than a decade later, based on weak evidence some doctors have adopted this strategy, although there is not yet agreement about its real benefit. In this opinion paper, we analyze the methodological and plausibility problem beneath 'the Scratching Case'. This is also applicable to several other examples of spurious associations reported in the literature. In particular, we emphasize what should be done so as not to dilute evidence-based medicine by a vicious circle created by the over-exploitation of inadequate or insufficient data to compute incorrect or incomplete conclusions.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cited by (4)

References (26)

Cited by (4)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK