Fertility specialists' views, behavior, and attitudes towards the use of endometrial scratching in Italy.
Endometrial injury
Endometrial scratching
IVF
Infertility
Sterility
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 07 2023
29 07 2023
Historique:
received:
25
08
2022
accepted:
22
07
2023
medline:
31
7
2023
pubmed:
30
7
2023
entrez:
29
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endometrial scratching (ES) or injury is intentional damage to the endometrium performed to improve reproductive outcomes for infertile women desiring pregnancy. Moreover, recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials demonstrated that ES is not effective, data on the safety are limited, and it should not be recommended in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to assess the view and behavior towards ES among fertility specialists throughout infertility centers in Italy, and the relationship between these views and the attitudes towards the use of ES as an add-on in their commercial setting. Online survey among infertility centers, affiliated to Italian Society of Human Reproduction (SIRU), was performed using a detailed questionnaire including 45 questions with the possibility to give "closed" multi-choice answers for 41 items and "open" answers for 4 items. Online data from the websites of the infertility centers resulting in affiliation with the specialists were also recorded and analyzed. The quality of information about ES given on infertility centers websites was assessed using a scoring matrix including 10 specific questions (scored from 0 to 2 points), and the possible scores ranged from 0 to 13 points ('excellent' if the score was 9 points or more, 'moderate' if the score was between 5 and 8, and 'poor' if it was 4 points or less). The response rate was of 60.6% (43 questionnaires / 71 infertility SIRU-affiliated centers). All included questionnaires were completed in their entirety. Most physicians (~ 70%) reported to offer ES to less than 10% of their patients. The procedure is mainly performed in the secretory phase (69.2%) using pipelle (61.5%), and usually in medical ambulatory (56.4%) before IVF cycles to improve implantation (71.8%) without drugs administration (e.g., pain drugs, antibiotics, anti-hemorrhagics, or others) before (76.8%) or after (64.1%) the procedure. Only a little proportion of infertility centers included in the analysis proposes formally the ES as an add-on procedure (9.3%), even if, when proposed, the full description of the indications, efficacy, safety, and costs is never addressed. However, the overall information quality of the websites was generally "poor" ranging from 3 to 8 and having a low total score (4.7 ± 1.6; mean ± standard deviation). In Italy, ES is a procedure still performed among fertility specialists for improving the implantation rate in IVF patients. Moreover, they have a poor attitude in proposing ES as an add-on in the commercial setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Endometrial scratching (ES) or injury is intentional damage to the endometrium performed to improve reproductive outcomes for infertile women desiring pregnancy. Moreover, recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials demonstrated that ES is not effective, data on the safety are limited, and it should not be recommended in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to assess the view and behavior towards ES among fertility specialists throughout infertility centers in Italy, and the relationship between these views and the attitudes towards the use of ES as an add-on in their commercial setting.
METHODS
Online survey among infertility centers, affiliated to Italian Society of Human Reproduction (SIRU), was performed using a detailed questionnaire including 45 questions with the possibility to give "closed" multi-choice answers for 41 items and "open" answers for 4 items. Online data from the websites of the infertility centers resulting in affiliation with the specialists were also recorded and analyzed. The quality of information about ES given on infertility centers websites was assessed using a scoring matrix including 10 specific questions (scored from 0 to 2 points), and the possible scores ranged from 0 to 13 points ('excellent' if the score was 9 points or more, 'moderate' if the score was between 5 and 8, and 'poor' if it was 4 points or less).
RESULTS
The response rate was of 60.6% (43 questionnaires / 71 infertility SIRU-affiliated centers). All included questionnaires were completed in their entirety. Most physicians (~ 70%) reported to offer ES to less than 10% of their patients. The procedure is mainly performed in the secretory phase (69.2%) using pipelle (61.5%), and usually in medical ambulatory (56.4%) before IVF cycles to improve implantation (71.8%) without drugs administration (e.g., pain drugs, antibiotics, anti-hemorrhagics, or others) before (76.8%) or after (64.1%) the procedure. Only a little proportion of infertility centers included in the analysis proposes formally the ES as an add-on procedure (9.3%), even if, when proposed, the full description of the indications, efficacy, safety, and costs is never addressed. However, the overall information quality of the websites was generally "poor" ranging from 3 to 8 and having a low total score (4.7 ± 1.6; mean ± standard deviation).
CONCLUSIONS
In Italy, ES is a procedure still performed among fertility specialists for improving the implantation rate in IVF patients. Moreover, they have a poor attitude in proposing ES as an add-on in the commercial setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37516869
doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02564-0
pii: 10.1186/s12905-023-02564-0
pmc: PMC10386779
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
397Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Reprod Sci. 2021 Dec;28(12):3466-3472
pubmed: 33939166
Hum Reprod Open. 2019 Aug 08;2019(3):hoz017
pubmed: 31406934
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Aug;60(4):605-609
pubmed: 32648257
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2021 Dec 14;:1-6
pubmed: 34905720
Hum Reprod. 2021 Apr 20;36(5):1447-1449
pubmed: 33743539
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012 Oct;164(2):176-9
pubmed: 22835632
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Jun;38(6):853-856
pubmed: 31023611
Hum Reprod. 2022 Jan 28;37(2):254-263
pubmed: 34864993
J Family Reprod Health. 2016 Sep;10(3):108-114
pubmed: 28101111
Hum Reprod. 2005 Jul;20(7):1944-51
pubmed: 15802323
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Jun;61(3):430-438
pubmed: 33594674
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Oct;287:114317
pubmed: 34492406
Reprod Sci. 2023 Jun;30(6):1701-1711
pubmed: 36471216
Reprod Biomed Online. 2022 Apr;44(4):617-629
pubmed: 35272939
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 18;3:CD011424
pubmed: 33734431
Hum Reprod. 2021 Jun 18;36(7):1854-1861
pubmed: 33942073
Fertil Steril. 2019 Dec;112(6):1015-1021
pubmed: 31843072
Fertil Steril. 2018 Sep;110(4):687-702.e2
pubmed: 30196966
Fertil Steril. 2022 Sep;118(3):603
pubmed: 35931493
Fertil Steril. 2003 Jun;79(6):1317-22
pubmed: 12798877
Fertil Steril. 2019 Dec;112(6):1043
pubmed: 31843074
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e50113
pubmed: 23226509
Fertil Steril. 2022 Mar;117(3):612-619
pubmed: 35105443
Reprod Biomed Online. 2022 Feb;44(2):316-323
pubmed: 34893436
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jul 16;14:90
pubmed: 25027174
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021 Jul 13;19(1):110
pubmed: 34256798
Fertil Steril. 2019 Dec;112(6):971-972
pubmed: 31843097
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 27;6(11):e013940
pubmed: 27890866
Hum Reprod. 2016 Jun;31(6):1241-4
pubmed: 27008891
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 10;6:CD009517
pubmed: 34110001
Fertil Steril. 2019 Jun;111(6):1094-1101
pubmed: 31155116
Reprod Biomed Online. 2022 Apr;44(4):583-585
pubmed: 35501028
Fertil Steril. 2014 Jan;101(1):222-6
pubmed: 24140039
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2015 Oct-Dec;8(4):218-23
pubmed: 26752857
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012 Dec;28(12):933-6
pubmed: 22943664
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380(4):325-334
pubmed: 30673547
Reprod Sci. 2014 Mar 6;21(8):955-965
pubmed: 24604231