Source 1review2022Frontiers in Reproductive Health
Toolkit/endometrial receptivity assay
endometrial receptivity assay
Also known as: ERA
Taxonomy: Technique Branch / Method. Workflows sit above the mechanism and technique branches rather than replacing them.
Summary
The endometrial receptivity assay (ERA) is a clinical assay intended to assess endometrial receptivity during the window of implantation. The supplied evidence indicates that, as a current test of the window of implantation, it does not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Usefulness & Problems
Why this is useful
ERA is used to evaluate the window of implantation and endometrial receptivity in a clinical reproductive medicine context. However, the supplied evidence states that current tests of the window of implantation, including ERA, do not consistently improve live birth outcomes.
Problem solved
ERA is intended to address the problem of identifying whether the endometrium is receptive during the window of implantation. The supplied evidence also indicates that the biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
Taxonomy & Function
Primary hierarchy
Technique Branch
Method: A concrete measurement method used to characterize an engineered system.
Mechanisms
No mechanism tags yet.
Techniques
Functional AssayTarget processes
No target processes tagged yet.
Implementation Constraints
cofactor dependency: cofactor requirement unknownencoding mode: genetically encodedimplementation constraint: context specific validationoperating role: sensor
The supplied evidence identifies ERA as a clinical assay for assessing endometrial receptivity during the window of implantation. No further implementation details, such as sample type, molecular readout, workflow, or required instrumentation, are provided in the supplied evidence.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is described as poor. In addition, current tests of the window of implantation, including ERA, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Validation
Cell-freeBacteriaMammalianMouseHumanTherapeuticIndep. Replication
Supporting Sources
Ranked Claims
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of window of implantation is poor.
Current tests of the window of implantation, including endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, including endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, including endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, including endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, including endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, including endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, including endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Approval Evidence
1 source2 linked approval claimsfirst-pass slug endometrial-receptivity-assay
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Source:
biological rationale limitationsupports
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of the window of implantation is poor.
The biological basis of current clinical markers or tests of window of implantation is poor.
Source:
clinical utility limitationsupports
Current tests of the window of implantation, including endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes measured by live birth rates.
Current tests of the window of implantation, such as endometrial thickness measurements and the endometrial receptivity assay, do not consistently improve clinical outcomes as measured by live birth rates.
Source:
Comparisons
Source-backed strengths
The available evidence supports that ERA is specifically positioned as a test of endometrial receptivity during the window of implantation. No validated strength in improving live birth rates is supported by the supplied evidence.
Compared with fluorescence line narrowing
endometrial receptivity assay and fluorescence line narrowing address a similar problem space.
Shared frame: same top-level item type
Compared with Langendorff perfused heart electrical recordings
endometrial receptivity assay and Langendorff perfused heart electrical recordings address a similar problem space.
Shared frame: same top-level item type
Strengths here: looks easier to implement in practice.
Compared with native green gel system
endometrial receptivity assay and native green gel system address a similar problem space.
Shared frame: same top-level item type
Strengths here: looks easier to implement in practice.
Ranked Citations
- 1.