SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2023
Low-molecular-weight heparin in thrombophilic women receiving in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-molecular-weight heparin in thrombophilic women receiving in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: A meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) on pregnancy outcomes in thrombophilic women receiving in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH with no treatment or placebo published from database inception until February 19, 2023. Primary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate, and secondary outcomes were the live birth rate, miscarriage rate, and the risk of bleeding events. The certainty of the evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 14.0.
resultsFive RCTs involving 1094 thrombophilic women receiving IVF/ICSI were finally included. Administration of LMWH was associated with statistically higher clinical pregnancy rate (4 RCTs, risk ratio [RR] 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.82, p < 0.001, low certainty evidence), implantation rate (5 RCTs, RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.25-1.78, p < 0.001, very low certainty evidence), and live birth rate (2 RCTs, RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.60-2.89, p < 0.001, very low certainty evidence), but with statistically lower miscarriage rate (2 RCTs, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.86, p = 0.021, very low certainty evidence). However, using LMWH was linked to a higher risk of bleeding events (2 RCTs, RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.49-3.74, p < 0.001, very low certainty evidence).
conclusionsVery low certainty evidence suggests that administration of LMWH may benefit pregnancy outcomes in thrombophilic women receiving IVF/ICSI treatment, although it may also increase the risk of bleeding events. However, before putting our findings into practice, healthcare professionals should conduct an in-depth evaluation of the available evidence and specific patient situations. Furthermore, due to the low methodological quality of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to validate our findings in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.