MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412150428 · doi:10.1186/s40001-025-02854-3

Evaluation of intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma for enhanced ovarian function and reproductive success in women with POI and POR: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4412150428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonia Sadeghpour, Farzad Maleki, Fatemeh Hajizadeh‐Sharafabad, Hojat Ghasemnejad-Berenji

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean journal of medical research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisPlatelet-rich plasmaMedicineAndrologyInternal medicineFunction (biology)PlateletBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on ovarian reserve and reproductive outcomes in patients with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) and poor ovarian response (POR). METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: The study registered in the PROSPERO database adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception to June 2024-23 studies included in the meta-analysis. A total of 1853 participants aged 29.8-45 years old were included in the meta-analysis. The human studies reporting the effect of intraovarian PRP injection on ovarian reserve indicators were included in the meta-analysis. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcomes were serum levels of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), Estradiol, and antral follicle count (AFC), number of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II (M2) oocytes, and pregnancy and live birth rates. RESULT(S): The pooled analysis of the included studies showed that intraovarian PRP injection significantly increased oocyte number (WMD: 0.97, 95% CI 0.58, 1.35, P < 0.001), M2 oocyte number (WMD: 0.80, 95% CI 0.33, 1.27, P < 0.001), AFC (WMD: 1.64, 95% CI 0.90, 2.38, P < 0.001), and AMH levels (WMD: 0.12 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.07, 0.17, P < 0.001) in women with POR. Besides, in women with POI, PRP injection significantly improved AFC (WMD: 1.33, 95% CI 1.19, 1.47, P < 0.001) and serum levels of FSH (WMD: - 15.68 IU/mL, 95% CI - 24.12, - 7.24, P < 0.001), AMH (WMD: 0.29 ng/mL, 95% CI 0.08, 0.49, P = 0.006), and LH (WMD: - 9.87 IU/mL, 95% CI - 15.23, - 4.51, P < 0.001). The meta-analysis revealed a pregnancy ratio of 0.21 and a live birth ratio of 0.18 in women with poor ovarian reserve after PRP injection. In women with POI, the figures were marginally lower, recorded as 0.138 for pregnancy and 0.10 for live birth, respectively. CONCLUSION: PRP may serve as an alternative therapy for POI and POR; however, further investigation is required to validate its efficacy and determine suitable candidates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.040
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean journal of medical researchSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207