A systematic review of restorative reproductive medicine practices

Systematic review / meta-analysis OA: closed public-domain-us
📄 Open PDF View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-10-04 ⓘ

This systematic review found insufficient evidence to support routine use of dietary supplements, operative laparoscopy for endometriosis, or fertility-based awareness methods for improving live birth rates in infertility.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if RRM is associated with improved live birth compared to no treatment or standard of care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: This prospectively registered systematic review evaluated the impact of RRM interventions compared with standard of care or no treatment (CRD420251175446). Interventions included dietary modifications (including vitamins and supplements), routine operative laparoscopy for endometriosis, and fertility-based awareness methods. The primary outcome was LB. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and time to conceive. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Studies involving male-factor infertility or assisted reproductive technology were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 5351 articles were screened, of which 15 met our inclusion criteria. These included 12 studies evaluating dietary interventions (including myo-inositol, probiotics, vitamin C, vitamin E, omega-3, N-acetyl cysteine, selenium, black cohosh and other nutritional supplements), three studies assessing routine operative laparoscopy for endometriosis, and one study evaluating fertility-based awareness methods. Most studies investigating dietary interventions reported negative findings or no statistically significant differences between the groups. In a similar vein, the three surgical studies yielded conflicting results. The single study evaluating fertility-based awareness methods reported a higher clinical pregnancy rate among participants using ovulation predictor kits (OPK) with self-reported pregnancy. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, 7/15 were judged to have a high risk of bias (47%), 6/15 were judged to have some concerns (40%), and 2/15 were judged to be low risk (13%). There are limited data supporting the impact of these interventions on our secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of additional vitamins/supplements beyond those currently recommended by clinical guidelines. Similarly, the available evidence is insufficient to support the routine use of operative laparoscopy for endometriosis in women with infertility. Data to support the effectiveness of fertility-based awareness methods also remain limited.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

SciLite annotations

chemicals 6
myo-inositol vitamin c vitamin e acetyl cysteine selenium
organisms 1
crataegus douglasii

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-26T06:15:05.866214+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-26T06:09:31.814270+00:00
scilite
last seen: 2026-10-04T09:59:34.739275+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-05T06:32:29.880811+00:00
License: public-domain-us · commercial use OK · attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine