Clarification on Article

Can I please get clarification on what this means:

Churchill and Comstock (2017) conclude:” In our preliminary observations, the non-
receptive ERA group had similar live birth rates compared to the receptive ERA group. It appears the majority of the pregnancies conceived in the non-receptive group occurred during ovulatory cycles and thus a non-receptive ERA in a medicated cycle likely does not have prognostic value for ovulatory cycles.

About me… I have had numerous medicated ERA cycles that have come back as “proliferative” after the first came back as “pre-receptive”, which apparently nobody has ever seen before. I’m currently waiting on the results of my ERA tests in a natural cycle and was just curious as to the article above and whether that relates to my medical anomaly case over the past year.

Thank you for your time.

Author

Scroll to Top