Immunological interventions in recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and SWOT analysis.

IF 1 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Giosuè G Incognito, Erika Pittana, Danilo Cimadomo, Alessandro Ruffa, Oriana Osetti, Marilena Taggi, Ilenia Mappa, Giuseppe Gullo, Marco Palumbo, Giuseppe Rizzo, Laura Rienzi, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Alberto Vaiarelli
{"title":"Immunological interventions in recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and SWOT analysis.","authors":"Giosuè G Incognito, Erika Pittana, Danilo Cimadomo, Alessandro Ruffa, Oriana Osetti, Marilena Taggi, Ilenia Mappa, Giuseppe Gullo, Marco Palumbo, Giuseppe Rizzo, Laura Rienzi, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Alberto Vaiarelli","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.25.05657-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) occurs when pregnancy is not achieved after multiple embryo transfers. The lack of standardized diagnostic criteria among clinicians makes RIF a particularly challenging condition, leading to the use of various procedures, including immunological ones, often without robust evidence. This study aims to provide an overview of the main characteristics of existing research on the role of interventions in relation to in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in patients with RIF.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A comprehensive bibliographic search was systematically conducted from inception to November 2024, focusing on studies that evaluated the impact of immunological treatments in RIF cases, comparing IVF outcomes between case and control groups.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 77 studies were included. The diagnostic criteria for RIF were heterogeneous, with only 36 studies (47%) defining RIF as three or more failed embryo transfers. Moreover, the studies generally had small sample sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is not yet sufficient evidence to support the routine use of immunological interventions in clinical practice for RIF. The existing research is marked by methodological inconsistencies, which limit the reliability and generalizability of the results.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.25.05657-X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) occurs when pregnancy is not achieved after multiple embryo transfers. The lack of standardized diagnostic criteria among clinicians makes RIF a particularly challenging condition, leading to the use of various procedures, including immunological ones, often without robust evidence. This study aims to provide an overview of the main characteristics of existing research on the role of interventions in relation to in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in patients with RIF.

Evidence acquisition: A comprehensive bibliographic search was systematically conducted from inception to November 2024, focusing on studies that evaluated the impact of immunological treatments in RIF cases, comparing IVF outcomes between case and control groups.

Evidence synthesis: A total of 77 studies were included. The diagnostic criteria for RIF were heterogeneous, with only 36 studies (47%) defining RIF as three or more failed embryo transfers. Moreover, the studies generally had small sample sizes.

Conclusions: There is not yet sufficient evidence to support the routine use of immunological interventions in clinical practice for RIF. The existing research is marked by methodological inconsistencies, which limit the reliability and generalizability of the results.

免疫干预在复发性植入失败:系统回顾和SWOT分析。
反复植入失败(RIF)发生在多个胚胎移植后未实现妊娠。临床医生缺乏标准化的诊断标准,这使得RIF成为一种特别具有挑战性的疾病,导致使用各种程序,包括免疫程序,通常没有强有力的证据。本研究旨在概述干预措施在RIF患者体外受精(IVF)结果中的作用的现有研究的主要特点。证据获取:从开始到2024年11月,系统地进行了全面的文献检索,重点是评估免疫治疗对RIF病例影响的研究,比较病例组和对照组之间的IVF结果。证据综合:共纳入77项研究。RIF的诊断标准各不相同,只有36项研究(47%)将RIF定义为3次或3次以上胚胎移植失败。此外,这些研究的样本量通常很小。结论:目前还没有足够的证据支持在临床实践中常规使用免疫干预治疗RIF。现有研究的特点是方法上的不一致,这限制了结果的可靠性和普遍性。
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
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信