Effectiveness of Myo-Inositol on Oocyte and Embryo Quality in Assisted Reproduction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Laura Pivazyan, Ekaterina Krylova, Lilia Obosyan, Valeriia Seregina, Roman Shapovalenko, Eduard Ayryan
{"title":"Effectiveness of Myo-Inositol on Oocyte and Embryo Quality in Assisted Reproduction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.","authors":"Laura Pivazyan, Ekaterina Krylova, Lilia Obosyan, Valeriia Seregina, Roman Shapovalenko, Eduard Ayryan","doi":"10.1159/000540023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the impact of myo-inositol on oocyte and embryo quality in women undergoing assisted reproduction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist (registration number: CRD42023433328). Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Scopus, Embase, and ClinicalTrials databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight RCTs were included for qualitative analysis reporting on 820 participants. Four meta-analyses were performed. Numbers of retrieved oocytes in comparison of intervention and control group were higher in inositol group (mean difference [MD] = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.05-0.77, p = 0.02). Meta-analysis of two studies comparing numbers of oocytes among poor ovarian responder patients showed no significant difference between intervention and control group (MD = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.57-1.58, p = 0.36). Miscarriage rate has no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups (risk ratios [RRs] = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.20-3.32, p = 0.77). Inositol played no role in improving clinical pregnancy rates; there was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group (RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.88-2.25, p = 0.15).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Thus, we did not find any benefits of using myo-inositol on oocyte and embryo quality in women undergoing reproductive technologies. Further studies are needed to assess efficacy, safety, and high compliance by female patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":12952,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the impact of myo-inositol on oocyte and embryo quality in women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Methods: The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist (registration number: CRD42023433328). Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Scopus, Embase, and ClinicalTrials databases.

Results: Eight RCTs were included for qualitative analysis reporting on 820 participants. Four meta-analyses were performed. Numbers of retrieved oocytes in comparison of intervention and control group were higher in inositol group (mean difference [MD] = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.05-0.77, p = 0.02). Meta-analysis of two studies comparing numbers of oocytes among poor ovarian responder patients showed no significant difference between intervention and control group (MD = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.57-1.58, p = 0.36). Miscarriage rate has no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups (risk ratios [RRs] = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.20-3.32, p = 0.77). Inositol played no role in improving clinical pregnancy rates; there was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group (RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.88-2.25, p = 0.15).

Conclusion: Thus, we did not find any benefits of using myo-inositol on oocyte and embryo quality in women undergoing reproductive technologies. Further studies are needed to assess efficacy, safety, and high compliance by female patients.

肌醇对辅助生殖中卵母细胞和胚胎质量的影响:随机临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
研究背景我们试图对随机临床试验进行系统综述和荟萃分析,以评估肌醇对接受辅助生殖的妇女的卵母细胞和胚胎质量的影响:系统综述按照系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)2020清单进行:注册编号:CRD42023433328。通过检索 PubMed、Cochrane Library、Google Scholar、Scopus、Embase 和 ClinicalTrials 数据库确定了相关研究:结果:共纳入 8 项随机临床试验 (RCT) 进行定性分析,报告了 820 名参与者的情况。进行了 4 项荟萃分析。干预组和对照组相比,肌醇组获得的卵母细胞数量更高(平均差异(MD)=0.41,95% CI:0.05-0.77,P=0.02)。两项研究的 Meta 分析比较了卵巢反应不良患者的卵母细胞数量,结果显示干预组和对照组之间没有显著差异(MD=0.50,95% CI:0.57-1.58,P=0.36)。治疗组和对照组的流产率在统计学上无明显差异(风险比(RR)=0.81,95% CI:0.20-3.32,P=0.77)。肌醇对提高临床妊娠率没有作用,干预组与对照组之间没有显著差异(RR=1.41,95% CI:0.88-2.25,P=0.15):因此,我们没有发现使用肌醇对接受生殖技术的妇女的卵母细胞和胚胎质量有任何益处。还需要进一步的研究来评估肌醇的疗效、安全性和女性患者的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal covers the most active and promising areas of current research in gynecology and obstetrics. Invited, well-referenced reviews by noted experts keep readers in touch with the general framework and direction of international study. Original papers report selected experimental and clinical investigations in all fields related to gynecology, obstetrics and reproduction. Short communications are published to allow immediate discussion of new data. The international and interdisciplinary character of this periodical provides an avenue to less accessible sources and to worldwide research for investigators and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信