SynthesisScientific reports2026
Efficacy of different pretreatments in IVF outcomes in patients with endometriosis: A systematic review and network meta‑analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- A novel approach to treating Endometriosis-Related Repeated IVF failures- insights from single case report.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 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
Abstract
To investigate the efficacy of different pretreatment protocols for women with endometriosis undergoing IVF. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Embase from inception to April 30, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating different pretreatment protocols in women with endometriosis undergoing IVF. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage rate, fertilization rate, implantation rate, gonadotropin dose, and number of retrieved oocytes. This network meta-analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials involving 1,435 women with endometriosis undergoing IVF. No clear improvement in clinical pregnancy rate was observed among the pretreatment protocols compared with the general protocol. For live birth rate, limited evidence from four RCTs suggested a higher rate in the general protocol than in the GnRH-a protocol (RR [95% CI], 2.12 [1.05, 4.31]), but this finding should be interpreted cautiously because of imprecision. Some differences were observed in secondary or intermediate outcomes. The number of retrieved oocytes was significantly higher in the general protocol than in the DNG protocol (MD [95% CI], 0.60 [0.24, 0.97]). The GnRH-a protocol (MD [95% CI], -2.11 [-2.94, -1.28]) and the general protocol (MD [95% CI], -2.45 [-3.50, -1.40]) were associated with lower gonadotropin doses than the DNG protocol. However, these secondary findings did not translate into clear improvements in the prespecified primary clinical outcomes. The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that, compared with the general protocol, pretreatment with GnRH-a or DNG was not associated with clear improvements in the primary clinical IVF outcomes, namely clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate, in patients with endometriosis. However, the evidence for live birth rate was limited to four RCTs and imprecise; therefore, this finding should be interpreted cautiously. Although some differences were observed in secondary or intermediate outcomes, these findings did not establish the clinical superiority of pretreatment protocols. PROSPERO under identifier: (CRD42024606775).
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.