SynthesisBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue
Platelet rich plasma for assisted reproduction: an overview of systematic reviews.
Synthesis in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used to improve endometrial receptivity in infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. This article aims to review the literature and critically appraise the available evidence regarding the efficacy of PRP for assisted reproduction. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn overview of systematic reviews (SRs) (umbrella review) of PRP use for assisted reproduction. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach.
resultsTwenty-five SRs published between 2020 and 2024 were included in this overview. The SRs reported data from 306 overlapping reports based on 112 individual primary studies. The overlap among primary studies was slight across all reports included (CCA index 1.9%). With the AMSTAR 2 tool, the SRs showed only some non-critical weakness, but no critical flaws. Thus, confidence in the results of the SRs can be considered high or moderate. Clinical pregnancy rate was reported in 17 SRs, chemical pregnancy in 8, implantation rate in 8, and live birth rate in 16 SRs. Almost uniformly the SRs showed increased rates of positive outcomes in PRP recipients compared to controls (from very low to high certainty of evidence). Miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy and multiple pregnancy, reported in some of the SRs, resulted uncertainty about the effect of PRP infusion compared with no intervention on these outcomes (no statistically significant differences between groups). DISCUSSION: The evidence from SRs shows beneficial effects of PRP compared to controls in terms of clinical and chemical pregnancy rates, implantation rates and live birth rates. The level of evidence varied from very low to high (more commonly low or moderate) in relation to methodological flaws and clinical heterogeneity of primary studies included in the SRs.
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.