2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
143
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 249 publications
(149 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
4
143
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However it is agreed that histological changes may not truly reflect functional endometrial changes and hopefully novel tests may be on the horizon to predict the receptive state of the uterus after follicular stimulation (and perhaps natural cycles?) [34]. Furthermore in our current study pregnancies were established within a wide range of E 2 levels, with low levels of 177 ng/mL (known to support receptivity) but also with high levels >2000 pg/mL, challenging the concept that "unphysiological moderate" hyperstrogenism can affect implantation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…However it is agreed that histological changes may not truly reflect functional endometrial changes and hopefully novel tests may be on the horizon to predict the receptive state of the uterus after follicular stimulation (and perhaps natural cycles?) [34]. Furthermore in our current study pregnancies were established within a wide range of E 2 levels, with low levels of 177 ng/mL (known to support receptivity) but also with high levels >2000 pg/mL, challenging the concept that "unphysiological moderate" hyperstrogenism can affect implantation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…The development of microarray technology [92] helped to analyze the expression of thousands of genes at the same time in an endometrial sample of development in the peri-implantation period. On those grounds, and consistent with the findings that endometrial receptivity may be related to its transcriptomic profile, molecular assessment of endometrial receptivity has been developed [93,94], a molecular diagnostic tool that contains 238 expressed genes coupled to a computational predictor, which is able to identify endometrial samples within the window of implantation, independent of their histological appearance. The endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test may help to identify patients with implantation failure caused by a nonreceptive endometrium, improving the ability to control the endometrial environment for implantation.…”
Section: Abnormal Endometrial Receptivitymentioning
confidence: 86%
“…The limitations of the histological dating are confirmed once again in the comparison with the ERA [63], changing the point of view and initiating a transformation from the anatomic to molecular medicine. Our group compared the endometrial dating according to the histologic features (Noyes criteria) between two pathologists and the ERA predictor in samples from oocyte donors.…”
Section: Molecular Approachesmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The ERA test is included in the clinical protocol of implantation failure in our group as it has been proven an accurate method to discriminate among patients with receptive and nonreceptive endometrium on day LH + 7, or after 5 days of progesterone in a programmed cycle [63]. Nevertheless in terms of implantation, the clinical relevance of this molecular tool for endometrial receptivity has not been yet elucidated in randomized controlled trials.…”
Section: Molecular Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%