ReviewReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2025
Efficacy and safety of nutritional supplements in female infertility: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of Vitamins in Preconception Care and Infertility Treatment: A Narrative Review.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfertility represents a prevalent condition affecting the reproductive system. It has a global incidence of approximately 17.5%. Nutritional supplements are increasingly used as complementary therapy for female infertility, though their efficacy remains controversial. This study aimed to systematically assess the effectiveness of various nutritional supplements in female infertility through a network meta-analysis (NMA).
methodsThe Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed, and databases were retrieved for relevant English articles on the effectiveness of nutritional supplements in female infertility up to April 17, 2025. The quality of articles was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. The GEMTC package in R software was employed to compare the results via a Bayesian NMA. The mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) served as effect size indicators. The effectiveness of interventions was evaluated via the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to the total area (SUCRA). The evidence’s confidence was evaluated via the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA). P < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Funnel plots were created via Stata 18.0 to assess the publication bias.
resultsThis NMA included 30 studies with 3,977 patients. The results revealed that compared to alternative interventions, the combination of probiotics and vitamin D exhibited the most significant increase in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.29, 95% CrI = 1.1, 1.52; CINeMA: Low certainty). Curcumin alone demonstrated a substantial increase in both the number (No.) of oocytes retrieved (MD = 6.96, 95% CrI = 3.23, 10.71; CINeMA: Very low certainty) and the fertilization rate (MD = 9.02, 95% CrI = 2.98, 15.07; CINeMA: Low certainty). Astaxanthin alone resulted in a notable increase in the No. of good-quality embryos (MD = 1.17, 95% CrI = 0.19, 2.16; CINeMA: Very low certainty). Curcumin intake showed the greatest effect on the increase in MII (MD = 6.35, 95% CrI = 3.31, 9.41; CINeMA: Very low certainty). The assessment of adverse events indicated that no interventions were significantly linked to miscarriage.
conclusionsNutritional supplements can play a crucial role in regulating the ovarian environment and enhancing pregnancy outcomes for infertile women. The combination of vitamin D with other nutritional supplements, as well as the intake of coenzyme Q10, astaxanthin, or curcumin, was more effective than other nutritional supplements.
trial registrationIts protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD420251052361.
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.