用于胚胎移植的玻尿酸富集培养基:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 1.9
Rodrigo Manieri Rocha, Maira C Ribeiro Andrade, Ionara Diniz Evangelista Santos Barcelos, Iara Gonçalves Roberto Viana, Wellington de Paula Martins
{"title":"用于胚胎移植的玻尿酸富集培养基:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Rodrigo Manieri Rocha, Maira C Ribeiro Andrade, Ionara Diniz Evangelista Santos Barcelos, Iara Gonçalves Roberto Viana, Wellington de Paula Martins","doi":"10.5935/1518-0557.20260012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated whether the use of hyaluronic acid (HA)-enriched medium for embryo transfer (ET) improves live birth rates in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted up to December 2024, without language restrictions, and only RCTs comparing HA-enriched to standard ET media were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method, sensitivity analyses excluded studies at high risk of bias, and evidence quality was evaluated with GRADE. Of 450 records identified, 24 studies were eligible, of which 20 were included in the meta-analysis, and most studies had a high risk of bias. Eleven studies reported live birth outcomes, with 2,026 versus 2,037 participants and 803 versus 697 live births in the HA-enriched and standard medium groups, respectively. The relative risk (RR) for live birth was 1.14 (95% CI: 0.99-1.31; p=0.07), with moderate heterogeneity (I2=54%), and sensitivity analysis showed an RR of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85-1.31; p=0.62). Clinical pregnancy rates were initially higher with HA-enriched medium (RR=1.17; 95% CI: 1.05-1.29; p=0.004), but this effect disappeared in sensitivity analysis (RR=1.05; p=0.53), and pregnancy loss showed no significant difference between groups. Previous studies had suggested a potential benefit of HA-enriched ET medium on live birth outcomes; however, in the present analysis no significant difference in live birth rates was observed between HA-enriched and standard ET media. Overall evidence quality was rated as very low due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, and current evidence does not support a clear benefit of HA-enriched ET medium, although ongoing trials may further clarify its role.</p>","PeriodicalId":520656,"journal":{"name":"JBRA assisted reproduction","volume":"30 2","pages":"382-395"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13318287/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hyaluronic Acid Enriched Medium for Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rodrigo Manieri Rocha, Maira C Ribeiro Andrade, Ionara Diniz Evangelista Santos Barcelos, Iara Gonçalves Roberto Viana, Wellington de Paula Martins\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/1518-0557.20260012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated whether the use of hyaluronic acid (HA)-enriched medium for embryo transfer (ET) improves live birth rates in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted up to December 2024, without language restrictions, and only RCTs comparing HA-enriched to standard ET media were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method, sensitivity analyses excluded studies at high risk of bias, and evidence quality was evaluated with GRADE. Of 450 records identified, 24 studies were eligible, of which 20 were included in the meta-analysis, and most studies had a high risk of bias. Eleven studies reported live birth outcomes, with 2,026 versus 2,037 participants and 803 versus 697 live births in the HA-enriched and standard medium groups, respectively. The relative risk (RR) for live birth was 1.14 (95% CI: 0.99-1.31; p=0.07), with moderate heterogeneity (I2=54%), and sensitivity analysis showed an RR of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85-1.31; p=0.62). Clinical pregnancy rates were initially higher with HA-enriched medium (RR=1.17; 95% CI: 1.05-1.29; p=0.004), but this effect disappeared in sensitivity analysis (RR=1.05; p=0.53), and pregnancy loss showed no significant difference between groups. Previous studies had suggested a potential benefit of HA-enriched ET medium on live birth outcomes; however, in the present analysis no significant difference in live birth rates was observed between HA-enriched and standard ET media. Overall evidence quality was rated as very low due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, and current evidence does not support a clear benefit of HA-enriched ET medium, although ongoing trials may further clarify its role.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBRA assisted reproduction\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"382-395\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13318287/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBRA assisted reproduction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20260012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBRA assisted reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20260012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究对随机对照试验(rct)进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,评估了在体外受精(IVF)周期中,使用富含透明质酸(HA)的培养基进行胚胎移植(ET)是否能提高活产率。我们对PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和ClinicalTrials.gov进行了全面的检索,截止到2024年12月,没有语言限制,只纳入了比较ha富集和标准ET培养基的随机对照试验。使用Cochrane工具评估偏倚风险,使用Mantel-Haenszel方法的随机效应模型进行meta分析,敏感性分析排除了高偏倚风险的研究,并使用GRADE评估证据质量。在确定的450项记录中,有24项研究符合条件,其中20项纳入了荟萃分析,大多数研究具有高偏倚风险。11项研究报告了活产结果,在ha富集组和标准中等组中,分别有2026对2037名参与者和803对697名活产婴儿。活产的相对危险度(RR)为1.14 (95% CI: 0.99 ~ 1.31; p=0.07),具有中等异质性(I2=54%),敏感性分析显示RR为1.06 (95% CI: 0.85 ~ 1.31; p=0.62)。ha富集培养基初始临床妊娠率较高(RR=1.17; 95% CI: 1.05 ~ 1.29; p=0.004),但在敏感性分析中该效应消失(RR=1.05; p=0.53),各组间妊娠损失无显著差异。先前的研究表明,富含ha的ET培养基对活产结局有潜在的益处;然而,在目前的分析中,在ha富集和标准ET培养基之间没有观察到活产率的显着差异。由于高偏倚、不一致和不精确的风险,总体证据质量被评为非常低,目前的证据并不支持ha富集ET培养基的明显益处,尽管正在进行的试验可能进一步阐明其作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hyaluronic Acid Enriched Medium for Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated whether the use of hyaluronic acid (HA)-enriched medium for embryo transfer (ET) improves live birth rates in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted up to December 2024, without language restrictions, and only RCTs comparing HA-enriched to standard ET media were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method, sensitivity analyses excluded studies at high risk of bias, and evidence quality was evaluated with GRADE. Of 450 records identified, 24 studies were eligible, of which 20 were included in the meta-analysis, and most studies had a high risk of bias. Eleven studies reported live birth outcomes, with 2,026 versus 2,037 participants and 803 versus 697 live births in the HA-enriched and standard medium groups, respectively. The relative risk (RR) for live birth was 1.14 (95% CI: 0.99-1.31; p=0.07), with moderate heterogeneity (I2=54%), and sensitivity analysis showed an RR of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85-1.31; p=0.62). Clinical pregnancy rates were initially higher with HA-enriched medium (RR=1.17; 95% CI: 1.05-1.29; p=0.004), but this effect disappeared in sensitivity analysis (RR=1.05; p=0.53), and pregnancy loss showed no significant difference between groups. Previous studies had suggested a potential benefit of HA-enriched ET medium on live birth outcomes; however, in the present analysis no significant difference in live birth rates was observed between HA-enriched and standard ET media. Overall evidence quality was rated as very low due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, and current evidence does not support a clear benefit of HA-enriched ET medium, although ongoing trials may further clarify its role.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书