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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".