ReviewTherapeutic advances in reproductive health
Revitalizing reproductive health: innovations and future frontiers in restorative medicine.
Review in Therapeutic advances in reproductive health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential Role of Prebiotics and Probiotics on Oocyte Quality, Embryo Development, Endometrial Health, and Fertility Outcomes in Assisted Reproductive Technologies.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Functional intrauterine surgery: restoring uterine potential to enable natural fertility.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
- Potential increase of the U.S. total fertility rate resulting from restorative treatment of unresolved subfertility: a simulation study.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Infertility affects around 17.5% of reproductive-aged individuals worldwide, posing significant personal and public health challenges. Although Medically Assisted Reproduction and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART; e.g., in vitro fertilization) have advanced outcomes, many couples fail to conceive due to unaddressed pelvic, uterine, or systemic factors. Objectives: We aim to (1) define the current usage of Restorative Reproduction Medicine (RRM) in clinical practice, (2) compare RRM outcomes with conventional ART, and (3) propose an integrated model of RRM plus ART for optimal fertility care. Design: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted (INPLASY registration no. INPLASY2024110069). Data sources and methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 1995-October 2024), combining terms such as "restorative reproductive medicine," "intrauterine adhesions," "myomas," "polyps," "hydrosalpinx," "endometritis," "BMI," "thyroid dysfunction," "microbiome," and "assisted reproductive technology." Inclusion criteria: studies on uterine/systemic factors affecting infertility, focusing on surgical/pharmacological RRM interventions and ART limitations. Exclusion criteria: male-only infertility, case reports, narrative reviews, non-English publications. Quality assessment employed the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We also briefly noted potential publication bias due to language and study-type restrictions. Results: From >25,000 initial titles, 3 sequential screenings yielded 145 key articles addressing uterine (septum, myomas, polyps, adhesions) and systemic (body mass index (BMI) extremes, thyroid dysfunction, microbiome imbalance) factors. Surgical corrections (e.g., hysteroscopic removal of polyps/myomas, salpingectomy for hydrosalpinx) significantly improved natural conception and ART success (⩾20%-40% increase in clinical pregnancy). Chronic endometritis treatment, endometrial microbiome modulation, and BMI/thyroid optimization further improved pregnancy rates by 15%-20%. Comparisons of RRM versus ART alone indicated that RRM often lowers overall cost and may reduce miscarriage, while ART offers immediate embryo transfer. Combining RRM to correct pathologies prior to ART can boost implantation and live birth rates (⩾40%-70% improvement in some studies). Conclusion: Restorative Reproductive Medicine comprehensively addresses pelvic and systemic abnormalities, thereby enhancing fertility outcomes and complementing ART. A proposed integrated model-RRM diagnostics/interventions followed by ART if needed-maximizes success, reduces time/cost, and emphasizes holistic reproductive health. Further multicenter trials are warranted to standardize protocols and fully realize RRM's potential in modern fertility care.
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.