Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effectiveness of hysteroscopy in improving pregnancy rates in subfertile women without other gynaecological symptoms: a systematic review

Open access
Bosteels, J., Weyers, S., Puttemans, P., Panayotidis, C., Van Herendael, B., Gomel, V., Mol, B. W.J., Mathieu, C., D'Hooghe, T.·2010·Human Reproduction Update

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although hysteroscopy is frequently used in the management of subfertile women, a systematic review of the evidence on this subject is lacking. METHODS: We summarized and appraised the evidence for the benefit yielded by this procedure. Our systematic search was limited to randomized and controlled studies. The QUOROM and MOOSE guidelines were followed. Language restrictions were not applied. RESULTS: We identified 30 relevant publications. Hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps with a mean diameter of 16 mm detected by ultrasound doubles the pregnancy rate when compared with diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination, starting 3 months after the surgical intervention [relative risk (RR) = 2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-3.2]. In patients with one fibroid structure smaller than 4 cm, there was a marginally significant benefit from myomectomy when compared with expectant management (RR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.0-3.7). Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus resulted in fewer pregnancies in patients with subfertility when compared with those with recurrent pregnancy loss (RR = 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5-0.9). Randomized controlled studies on hysteroscopic treatment of intrauterine adhesions are lacking. Hysteroscopy in the cycle preceding a subsequent IVF attempt nearly doubles the pregnancy rate in patients with at least two failed IVF attempts compared with starting IVF immediately (RR = 1.7; 95% CI: 1.5-2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Scarce evidence on the effectiveness of hysteroscopic surgery in subfertile women with polyps, fibroids, septate uterus or intrauterine adhesions indicates a potential benefit. More randomized controlled trials are needed before widespread use of hysteroscopic surgery in the general subfertile population can be justified.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humupd/dmp033

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 101 references

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Bosteels, J., Weyers, S., Puttemans, P., Panayotidis, C., Van Herendael, B., Gomel, V., Mol, B. W. J., Mathieu, C., & D'Hooghe, T.
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Published
2009-09-10
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
1-11
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
OpenAlex
W2163552473
Cited by
257
References
101
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effectiveness of hysteroscopy in improving pregnancy rates in subfertile women without other gynaecological symptoms: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dmp033
The paper
Bosteels, J., Weyers, S., Puttemans, P., Panayotidis, C., Van Herendael, B., Gomel, V., Mol, B. W. J., Mathieu, C., & D'Hooghe, T. (2010). The effectiveness of hysteroscopy in improving pregnancy rates in subfertile women without other gynaecological symptoms: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp033

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.