SynthesisJBRA assisted reproduction2026
Hyaluronic Acid Enriched Medium for Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated whether the use of hyaluronic acid (HA)-enriched medium for embryo transfer (ET) improves live birth rates in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted up to December 2024, without language restrictions, and only RCTs comparing HA-enriched to standard ET media were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method, sensitivity analyses excluded studies at high risk of bias, and evidence quality was evaluated with GRADE. Of 450 records identified, 24 studies were eligible, of which 20 were included in the meta-analysis, and most studies had a high risk of bias. Eleven studies reported live birth outcomes, with 2,026 versus 2,037 participants and 803 versus 697 live births in the HA-enriched and standard medium groups, respectively. The relative risk (RR) for live birth was 1.14 (95% CI: 0.99-1.31; p=0.07), with moderate heterogeneity (I2=54%), and sensitivity analysis showed an RR of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85-1.31; p=0.62). Clinical pregnancy rates were initially higher with HA-enriched medium (RR=1.17; 95% CI: 1.05-1.29; p=0.004), but this effect disappeared in sensitivity analysis (RR=1.05; p=0.53), and pregnancy loss showed no significant difference between groups. Previous studies had suggested a potential benefit of HA-enriched ET medium on live birth outcomes; however, in the present analysis no significant difference in live birth rates was observed between HA-enriched and standard ET media. Overall evidence quality was rated as very low due to high risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, and current evidence does not support a clear benefit of HA-enriched ET medium, although ongoing trials may further clarify its role.
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.