Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40035946›Full record

ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025

Comparative efficacy of intrauterine infusion treatments for recurrent implantation failure: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lingjie Jiang, Liang Wen, Xiaojuan Lv, Nan Tang, Yuan Yuan

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The Value of Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment in Reproductive Disorders: An Umbrella Review.American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Endometrial immune dysregulation shapes CD8Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors.

Lingjie JiangPhysical Examination Center of the First Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Liang WenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaojuan LvDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Seventh Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Nan TangChinese People'S Liberation Army (PLA) Medical School, Beijing, China. tangnan301@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9702-8402
Yuan YuanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China. 2336071956@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRecurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a significant challenge in assisted reproductive technology (ART), affecting many women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). This study aims to compare the efficacy of various intrauterine infusion treatments, including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), in improving clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), and miscarriage rate (MR) in women with RIF.

methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of intrauterine infusion treatments for RIF. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to compare the outcomes of different treatments.

resultsA total of 25 RCTs involving 3035 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The treatments involved G-CSF, PRP, HCG, PBMCs, placebo, and blank control. The results of the network meta-analysis for CPR and LBR were statistically significant among treatments, but there was no statistical significance in MR. The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking of CPR and LBR showed that intrauterine infusion treatments of G-CSF, PRP, HCG, and PBMCs were much better than placebo and blank. The SUCRA values of CPR were ranked probabilistically from high to low as follows: PRP (84.5%) > PBMCs (76.5%) > G-CSF (65.7%) > HCG (52.5%) > placebo (20.8%) > blank (0.1%). The SUCRA values of LBR were ranked probabilistically from high to low as follows: PRP (81.4%) > PBMCs (64.6%) > G-CSF (58.0%) > HCG (48.7%) > placebo (42.4%) > blank (4.9%).

conclusionAll these findings confirmed that intrauterine infusions of PRP and PBMCs significantly improve pregnancy outcomes in women with RIF. PRP emerged as the most effective treatment. However, to establish the most effective approach for managing patients with RIF, future research should prioritize direct and robust comparisons between PRP and other therapeutic strategies, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of their relative efficacy.

Indexed as

Embryo ImplantationAbortion, SpontaneousBirth RateChorionic GonadotropinEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansLive BirthPlatelet-Rich PlasmaPregnancyPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproductive Techniques, AssistedChorionic GonadotropinGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorIntrauterine infusionNetwork meta-analysisRecurrent implantation failure

Identifiers

PMID40035946
PMCPMC12055747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.