SynthesisFrontiers in reproductive health2025
Melatonin improved the outcomes of women with ART: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Mitochondrial DNA Modification in Assisted Reproduction: Concept to Practice-A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Melatonin as a Redox Modulator in Developmental Programming: Implications for Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Therapeutic Roles and Safety Profiles of Non-Vitamin Antioxidant Supplements in Female Infertility: A Narrative Review.Journal of family & 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate whether the melatonin supplementation could improve the embryo development and pregnancy outcomes of infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251003042). The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before March 5, 2025 are included to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin on infertile women undergoing ART. Eligible studies reported at least one embryo development or pregnancy-related outcome. Primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate; secondary outcomes including oocyte yield, fertilization rate, MII oocyte number, and high-quality embryo formation. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on stimulation protocols, melatonin dosage, and population characteristics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and pooled effect sizes were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity. Totally, eleven RCTs with a total of 1,481 participants were analyzed here. Data sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Results: Melatonin supplementation significantly improved clinical pregnancy rate (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.22-2.07). Regarding embryo development, melatonin significantly increased the number of high-quality embryos (MD = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.07-0.79), MII oocyte (SMD=0.99, 95% CI: 0.29-1.69), and fertilization rates (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.01-1.73). No significant difference was observed in oocyte yield (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.94). Subgroup analysis revealed enhanced clinical pregnancy outcomes with ≤3 mg/day melatonin and under GnRH-a long protocols. Moderate to high heterogeneity was observed in some secondary outcomes, with publication bias suggested for the MII oocyte outcome. Conclusions: Melatonin supplementation may improve intermediate outcomes such as fertilization, embryo quality, and clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART. With a favorable safety profile, it could be a low-cost adjunct for selected patients, though standardized guidelines are lacking and large-scale RCTs are needed to clarify long-term effects. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251003042, PROSPERO CRD420251003042.
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.