SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Cellular therapies in primary ovarian insufficiency and poor ovarian reserve: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Value of Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment in Reproductive Disorders: An Umbrella Review.American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2026Pooled it
- Ovarian ageing: from biological constraint to emerging therapeutic frontier.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Progress in research on the effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) ovarian injection on early ovarian reserve dysfunction and premature ovarian insufficiency.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Platelet-rich plasma in reproductive medicine: from ovarian follicles to the ovarian niche and emerging stem cell mobilization-based regenerative strategies.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy, safety, and limitations of cellular therapy in primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) and poor ovarian response (POR).
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted through the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The study type was limited to clinical trials, pilot studies, and case reports performed on human patients. Animal experiments, in vitro studies, correlational and longitudinal studies, and study designs and protocols were excluded. Twenty-seven studies with 694 patients from 2014 were found by May 2025.
resultsMost studies (59.3%) were from Asia, and 77.8% lacked control groups. Autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) were used in 37% of studies, rising to 51.8% when combined with platelet-rich plasma. Intraovarian injection was the most common delivery method (70.3%), administered laparoscopically (29.6%), or transvaginally (37%). Follow-up durations of 7-12 months were most common (40.7%). Pregnancy outcomes were reported in 59.2% of studies with control groups. Of the 522 patients treated, 60 (11.7%) became pregnant, compared to 13 (7.6%) of 172 controls. In two-arm studies (22.2% of all), the pregnancy rate was 22.6% (40 patients). Menstruation resumed in 37 (7.1%) of 522 treated patients, dropping to 5.1% in controlled studies.
conclusionVariability in sample sizes and protocols affects the reliability of findings. Larger trials and standardized protocols for cell type, delivery, and outcomes are essential. Seven to twelve months of follow-up seems suitable for evaluating efficacy but may not be optimal for evaluating the safety. Stratifying patients by age, cause, and reserve could improve outcomes.
trial registrationProspero (ID: CRD420251047104).
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.