Table 1.

A list of the studies that have examined the effect of endometriosis on oocyte and embryo quality and an overview of their findings, Reproduced with permission from the Journal of Clinical Medicine, “Special issue on Endometriosis and infertility: Insights into causal links management strategies”, S Latif and E Saridogan 2023 [23].

Scheme	Study Design	Impact of Endometriosis on Oocyte/Embryo Quality	Study Findings
Goud et al., 2014 [24]	Prospective cohort study, n = 28 women	Oocyte quality reduced ↓	-Increased likelihood of oocyte to fail in vitro maturation IVM; -Altered oocyte morphology (cortical granule loss, spindle disruption, zona pellucida hardening).
Kasopoglu et al., 2017 [25]	Retrospective cohort study, n = 72 women	Oocyte quality reduced ↓	-Altered oocyte morphology (morphological abnormalities of the cytoplasm, zona pellucida, and first polar body).
Simon et al., 1994; Sung et al., 1997; Diaz et al., 2000 [4,26,27]	Restrospective cohort study, n = 137 women; retrospective cohort study, n = 239 women; matched case–control study, n = 58 women	Oocyte quality reduced ↓	-Lower implantation rates in donor oocytes from women with endometriosis; -Equivalent implantation rates and pregnancy rates when women with endometriosis using donor oocytes from healthy women.
Ferrero et al., 2019 [28]	Prospective cohort, n = 12 women	Oocyte quality reduced ↓	-Differential transcriptomic profile associated with lower oocyte quality.
Sanchez et al., 2017 [9]	Review article	Oocyte quality reduced ↓	-Altered oocyte morphology; -Increased likelihood of oocyte to fail IVM; -Lower cytoplasmic mitochondrial content.
Robin et al., 2021 [29]	Retrospective cohort study, n = 596 women	Oocyte quality unaffected ↔	-Normal oocyte morphology; -Lower number of top-quality embryos and lower cumulative clinical pregnancy rate are both attributed to lower oocyte yield.
Metzemaeker et al., 2020, Filippi et al., 2014, Yang et al., 2015, Hamdan et al., 2015 [14,16,30,31]	Population-based cohort study, n = 503 IVF cycles [30]; prospective cohort study, n = 29 women [31]; systematic review and meta-analysis, n = 1039 women [16]; systematic review and meta-analysis, n = 928 women [14]	Oocyte quality unaffected ↔	-Equivalent fertilization rates.
Brizek et al., 1995 [32]	Retrospective cohort study, n = 235 embryos	Embryo quality reduced ↓	-Increased incidence of aberrant development of embryos (more prevalent nuclear and cytoplasmic impairment, cytoplasmic fragmentation, uneven cleavage).
Pellicer et al., 2001 [5]	Retrospective cohort study, n= 70 women	Embryo quality reduced ↓	-Altered embryo morphology (fewer blastomeres per embryo, a higher number of arrested embryos.
Paffoni et al., 2019 [33]	Randomized-controlled in vitro study, n = 147 oocytes	Embryo quality reduced ↓	-Altered embryo morphology (excess cellular fragmentation, cell death in blastomeres, and altered blastomere division.
Alshehre et al., 2020 [17]	Systematic review and meta-analysis, n = 8 studies	Embryo quality unaffected ↔	-No difference in total number of embryos; -No difference in number of top-quality embryos; -No difference in clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, or live birth rate.
Sanchez et al., 2020 [34]	Retrospective matched cohort study, n = 3818 embryos	Embryo quality unaffected ↔	-Equivalent number of cleavage embryos; -Equivalent number of good-quality embryos.
Dongye et al., 2021 [35]	Systematic review and meta-analysis, n = 22 studies	Embryo quality unaffected ↔	-Normal embryo morphology.
Juneau et al., 2017 [21]	Retrospective cohort study, n = 305	Embryo quality unaffected ↔	-No difference in aneuploidy rates.