Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 2 Clinical outcome by endometrial pattern and thickness

From: The effect of endometrial thickness and pattern measured by ultrasonography on pregnancy outcomes during IVF-ET cycles

Groups (n) P on HCG day (ng/mol) No. of embryos transplanted (n) No. of clinical cycles (n) No. of embryos implanted(n) Clinical pregnancy rate(%) Implantation rate (%)
Pattern A (1094) 0.58 ± 0.41ab 2315 604 818 55.2* 35.3
Pattern B (684) 0.65 ± 0.53bc 1455 348 467 50.9* 32.1
Pattern C (155) 0.79 ± 0.65ca 333 58 78 37.4 23.4
Group 1 (47) - - - - 25.5 13.0
Group 2 (1749) - - - - 52.1 33.8#
Group 3 (137) - - - - 63.5 39.1■#
  1. Note: Pattern A was defined a triple-line pattern consisting of a central hyperechogenic line surrounded by two hypoechoic layers; Pattern B was defined an intermediate isoechogenic pattern with the same reflectivity as the surrounding myometrium and a poorly defined central echogenic line; Pattern C was defined as homogeneous, hyperechogenic endometrium. Group 1: endometrial thickness was ≤7 mm; Group 2: endometrial thickness was >7 mm to ≤14 mm; Group 3: endometrial thickness was>14 mm.
  2. PP < 0.05; PPP < 0.05, aPbPcP < 0.01; P < 0.05, PPPP < 0.01. There is significant difference between the groups ( P < 0.05).