MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410345344 · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07638-5

Exploring uterine niche: a systemic review on secondary infertility rates, pathophysiological correlations, impact on assisted reproduction technology (ART), and the efficacy of surgical interventions

2025· review· en· W4410345344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. M. C. S. Jayasundara, I. A. Jayawardane, T. D. K. M. Jayasingha, SDS Weliange

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive medicineMedicineInfertilityReproductionPsychological interventionPathophysiologyAssisted reproductive technologyGynecologyIntensive care medicinePregnancyPathologyBiologyNursingEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The rising trend of cesarean sections worldwide has resulted in an increased incidence of uterine niches, a cavity formed at the cesarean scar site due to impaired tissue healing. Secondary infertility in women with uterine niches is a hot topic in obstetrics and gynecology. Therefore, the current study aims to untwist the link between secondary infertility and uterine niche, exploring the pathophysiological correlations, effects on assisted reproduction technology, and role of surgical interventions in resuming fertility. METHODOLOGY: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Science Direct were searched systematically. Rayyan was employed as a semi-automated tool for study selection. Full-text articles in the English language were included. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or book chapters were excluded. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed the quality of cohort and case-control studies, while the Cochrane Risk-of-bias tool evaluated randomized controlled trials. Data synthesis followed a thematic analysis. RESULTS: 35 articles from 3301 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among those, 25 were cohort studies, only one was a randomized controlled trial, and the rest had different study designs. The study quality assessment revealed average to good quality. The incidence of secondary infertility in women with uterine niches ranged from 27.37% (n = 95) to 75% (n = 16). Decreased residual myometrial thickness, chronic inflammatory changes at the niche site, and fluid accumulation within the niche cavity were identified as leading causes of secondary infertility. The uterine niche adversely affected assisted reproductive outcomes through multiple mechanisms. Various surgical interventions, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or combined surgery, showed differing efficacies in restoring fertility. CONCLUSION: The study provides valuable insights regarding the association between secondary infertility and uterine niche. However, smaller sample sizes, retrospective nature of study designs, reliance on observational data, and heterogeneity of study reporting have limited the ability to arrive at solid conclusions. Therefore, we encourage well-designed prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials, to further explore this trending area. REGISTER: The study protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD4204526319).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0180.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207