Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35118388›Full record

SynthesisReproduction & fertility2021

Intralipid therapy and adverse reproductive outcome: is there any evidence?

Parijot Kumar, Kevin Marron, Conor Harrity

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproduction & fertility, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions for recurrent embryo implantation failure: An umbrella review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Parijot KumarBeaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Kevin MarronRCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Conor HarrityBeaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Beaumont Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controversy exists regarding the benefits of intravenous intralipid therapy in patients with a poor reproductive history. It is frequently reported that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness, utility or safety for this treatment. While individual studies may be perceived as weak, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine if there is any advantage to patients. PubMed, Embase and Scopus searches were performed with the target populations being either recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or recurrent implantation failure (RIF) undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and receiving intralipid infusions. These cohorts were compared with either placebo, no intervention or alternative treatments. The most relevant outcome measures were considered to be clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), implantation rate (IR) and miscarriage rate (MR). Twelve studies encompassing 2676 participants met the criteria for selection and were included and reviewed. Treatment of the target population with intralipid led to an improvement in IR (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.97, 2.05-4.29), pregnancy rate (OR: 1.64, 1.31-2.04), and LBR (OR: 2.36, 1.75-3.17), with a reduction in MR (OR: 0.2, 0.14-0.30). Although intravenous intralipid is not recommended as a routine treatment for recurrent miscarriage or implantation failure, there is enough data to suggest consideration in selected patients where routine testing is unremarkable, standard treatments have failed and immunological risk factors are present. The presence of abnormal uterine natural killer (uNK) cells needs more study as a target marker to determine those who could benefit. LAY SUMMARY: There is controversy regarding the benefits and efficacy of intravenous intralipid therapy in patients with a poor reproductive history. It is frequently reported that there is no credible evidence to support their use. A situation we frequently face as medical professionals is patients asking us to consider immune therapy (such as intralipid) for reproductive failure where good quality embryos have been used. Intralipid infusions have been reported to improve pregnancy rates with IVF, and reduce the miscarriage risk in selected patient groups, but study results are not universally accepted. We have performed a detailed review and analysis of the literature to determine if there is any benefit to this immune treatment in specific patient groups. Our paper identified and analyzed 12 studies, finding that treatment with intravenous intralipid leads to an improvement in implantation, pregnancy and live birth rates, with a decrease in miscarriage rate. This study shows that there is evidence to suggest consideration of intralipid in certain patients where standard treatments have failed.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualLive BirthEmulsionsFemaleHumansPhospholipidsPregnancyPregnancy RateSoybean OilEmulsionsPhospholipidsSoybean Oilsoybean oil, phospholipid emulsionassisted reproductionintravenous intralipidmeta-analysispregnancy lossreproductive immunology

Identifiers

PMID35118388
PMCPMC8788620
OpenAlexW3167057650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.