Simón Carlos, Bellver José
Fundación IVI, Instituto Universitario IVI, Dept of Obst/Gynec, School of Medicine, Universidad de Valencia, INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Fundación IVI, Instituto Universitario IVI, Dept of Obst/Gynec, School of Medicine, Universidad de Valencia, INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain.
Hum Reprod. 2014 Aug;29(8):1618-21. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu126. Epub 2014 Jun 4.
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.
子宫内膜刮擦或损伤在十年前首次被提出,作为一种简单的干预措施,用于改善接受辅助生殖技术(ART)的患者的子宫内膜容受性。十多年后,基于薄弱的证据,一些医生采用了这种策略,尽管对于其实际益处尚未达成共识。在这篇观点论文中,我们分析了“刮擦案例”背后的方法学和合理性问题。这也适用于文献中报道的其他几个虚假关联的例子。特别是,我们强调应该采取哪些措施,以免因过度利用不充分或不足的数据得出错误或不完整的结论而形成恶性循环,从而削弱循证医学。