Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36293052›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Does Intrauterine Injection of hCG Improve IVF Outcome? A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis.

Alessandro Conforti, Salvatore Longobardi, Luigi Carbone, Giuseppe Gabriele Iorio, Federica Cariati, Maria Rosaria Campitiello, Ida Strina, Michela Palese, Thomas D'Hooghe, Carlo Alviggi

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Alessandro ConfortiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5676-0055
Salvatore LongobardiMerck Serono S.p.A, 00176 Roma, Italy.
Luigi CarboneDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2127-1876
Giuseppe Gabriele IorioDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1723-3420
Federica CariatiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Maria Rosaria CampitielloDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Physiopathology of Human Reproduction, ASL Salerno, 84124 Salerno, Italy.
Ida StrinaDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Michela PaleseDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Thomas D'HoogheDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Biomedical Sciences Group, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Carlo AlviggiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
University of Naples Federico II · ITMerck (Germany) · DEMerck Serono (Italy) · ITUniversity of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various interventions have been proposed to improve embryo implantation in IVF. Among these, intrauterine injections of human chorionic gonadotropin seem to have promising results. Consequently, we conducted a review and meta-analysis to assess IVF outcomes by comparing couples who underwent intrauterine hCG injection transfer versus those who underwent embryo transfer with intrauterine injection of placebo, or without any additional intervention. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were the implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate. A meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects model, while bias within studies was detected using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Ectopic pregnancies and stillbirths were also assessed. The clinical pregnancy (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.17−1.62, p < 0.0001) and implantation rate (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12−1.75, p = 0.003) were significantly higher in women who underwent hCG injection than in the control group. These significant effects persisted only in women who underwent cleavage-stage embryo transfer. No significant differences between groups were observed in the other secondary outcomes. In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that intrauterine injection of hCG could be a valuable approach in women who undergo cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Given the lack of data about the live birth rate, caution should be exercised in interpreting these data.

Indexed as

Chorionic GonadotropinEmbryo TransferEmbryo ImplantationFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateChorionic GonadotropinARTembryo implantationhCGICSIintrauterine administrationIVF

Identifiers

PMID36293052
PMCPMC9603006
OpenAlexW4306152026

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.