SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Vaginal probiotics as therapeutic adjuncts for improving embryo transfer success rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Probiotic Supplementation on Reproductive Outcomes of Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Who Are Candidates for Intrauterine Insemination: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2026Trial
- Gut microbiota‑immune crosstalk in recurrent pregnancy loss: Mechanisms and therapeutic perspectives (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Evaluation ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfertility treatments are continually evolving, with vaginal probiotic supplementation before embryo transfer (ET) being explored as a potential method to improve clinical outcomes. So, this systematic review evaluated the effect of vaginal probiotics on pregnancy rates following ET.
methodsStudies were identified through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and clinical trial registries up to October 17, 2024. We included prospective interventional studies (RCTs or quasi-experimental) focusing on pregnancy outcomes post-ET. We excluded non-prospective studies, non-vaginal routes of probiotic administration, and studies with insufficient methodological or statistical details. The data was extracted from each qualifying study by two reviewers and recorded using an electronic form. Results were synthesized using a random-effects model, with Mantel-Haenszel (MH) risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated for ET outcomes. Also, subgroup analyses were done to explore the history of recurrent implantation failure (RIF) as a probable source of heterogeneity.
resultsWe included six studies with 850 participants (419 in intervention and 431 in control groups). Vaginal probiotics showed a non-significant increase in clinical pregnancy rates compared to the control group (157 per 419 [37.47%] versus 136 per 431 [31.55%], respectively; RR: 1.19; P = 0.07), with similar findings in women with and without a history of RIF. No significant differences were found in biochemical pregnancy (RR: 1.04; P = 0.74) or ongoing pregnancy rates (RR: 1.09; P = 0.53). A non-significant reduction in miscarriage risk was observed (RR: 0.67; P = 0.12).
conclusionsVaginal probiotics may offer a non-significant increase in clinical pregnancy rates and a slight non-significant reduction in miscarriage risk. However, considering the potential limitations of the included studies, findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed to explore the potential of personalized probiotic therapy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION CODE: CRD42024550798.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.