Loading
Life sciences · Review
Medicina · October 16, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Review.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background and Objectives: Hysteroscopy permits direct assessment and treatment of the uterine cavity, but diagnostic yield does not necessarily translate into improved fertility. This narrative review examines its role in subfertility and reproductive medicine. Materials and Methods: The original literature search covered PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library through February 2026. Targeted checks during revision added the 2026 chronic endometritis consensus and the full CERM trial report; these updates do not represent a new comprehensive search. Evidence was interpreted by study design, population, outcome and precision, without formal risk-of-bias assessment or meta-analysis. Results: Large randomised trials do not support routine hysteroscopy before first IVF or after repeated IVF failure when ultrasonography is normal. Polypectomy has evidence of improved pregnancy rates in women planning IUI, although spontaneous pregnancies contributed to that result and live-birth benefit remains uncertain. Hysteroscopic myomectomy may improve clinical pregnancy in women with cavity-distorting fibroids; evidence for live birth is less secure. Adhesiolysis restores cavity anatomy, but reproductive estimates largely derive from observational series. The small TRUST trial did not demonstrate a live-birth advantage from septum resection and cannot establish equivalence. Hysteroscopy may guide biopsy for chronic endometritis but does not replace histological assessment. CERM found no improvement with doxycycline in its composite of cumulative live births and ongoing pregnancies at ≥24 weeks among women with recurrent miscarriage and CD138-defined endometritis. Fertility-sparing endometrial cancer treatment requires oncological selection, progestin therapy and histological surveillance. Conclusions: Hysteroscopy should address a defined diagnostic or therapeutic question. Decisions should distinguish spontaneous conception, IUI and IVF/ICSI and acknowledge uncertainty in live-birth outcomes.