Network meta-analysis of four common immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of patients with thin endometrium
review
OA: diamond
CC0
⤵ 1 in-corpus citation
AI-generated summary
This network meta-analysis compared four immunomodulatory therapies, finding hCG and PRP increased endometrial thickness, while IG-CSF and PRP improved implantation and live birth rates for thin endometrium patients.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
OBEJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes of four common immunomodulatory therapies for patients with thin endometrium. METHOD: This systematic review and network meta-analysis using a literature search up to January 2024, to identify relevant trials comparing endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (IG-CSF), and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) for patients with thin endometrium. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) to ranked four common immunomodulatory therapies on endometrium thickness, implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and live birth rate (LBR). RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: The pooled results of 22 studies showed that hCG (mean difference [MD]: 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-4.64) and PRP (MD: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.20-1.76) significantly increase endometrium thickness. The hCG was the best among the IG-CSF (MD = -2.56, 95% CI = -4.30 to -0.82), PBMC (MD = -2.75, 95% CI = -5.49 to -0.01), and PRP (MD = -2.07, 95% CI = -3.84 to -0.30) in increasing endometrium thickness. However, IG-CSF and PRP significantly improved IR (IG-CSF: risk ratio (RR; IG-CSF: RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.06-1.67; PRP: RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.19-2.23), and LBR (IG-CSF: RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.16-2.02; PRP: RR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.08-2.36). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence reveals that hCG and subcutaneous or intrauterine CSF (SG-CSF) may be the best treatment options for current thin endometrium patients. However, future high-quality and large-scale studies are necessary to validate our findings.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (sparse)
Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.
Cites (2)
References (53)
- A potential role for colony-stimulating factor 1 in the genesis of the early endometriotic lesion via openalex
- Treating patients with “thin” endometrium – an ongoing challenge via openalex
- doi:10.1097/gco.0b013e328302143c via openalex
- doi:10.1186/1477-7827-12-96 via openalex
- doi:10.1080/09513590.2019.1658187 via openalex
- doi:10.1038/s41598-022-21014-9 via openalex
- doi:10.18502/ijrm.v17i6.4816 via openalex
- doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135 via openalex
- doi:10.4049/jimmunol.175.11.7085 via openalex
- doi:10.1186/1477-7827-12-9 via openalex
- doi:10.1677/joe.0.1490249 via openalex
- doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 via openalex
- doi:10.18565/aig.2021.2.90-95 via openalex
- doi:10.1186/1477-7827-7-33 via openalex
- doi:10.1007/s13224-016-0929-4 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.jri.2016.11.006 via openalex
- doi:10.1007/s10815-013-0076-0 via openalex
- doi:10.18565/aig.2020.8.106-110 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humrep/det055 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.039 via openalex
- W48853484 via openalex
- W880829419 via openalex
- W1543317808 via openalex
- doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0473-z via openalex
- doi:10.1182/blood.v95.7.2269 via openalex
- doi:10.1155/2014/913235 via openalex
- doi:10.1186/s12958-016-0197-2 via openalex
- doi:10.1155/2017/3596079 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.05.010 via openalex
- doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 via openalex
- doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 via openalex
- doi:10.7326/m14-2385 via openalex
- doi:10.1002/ijgo.13152 via openalex
- doi:10.1182/blood-2001-12-0291 via openalex
- doi:10.5653/cerm.2021.04833 via openalex
- doi:10.4103/0974-1208.82361 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/aji.12450 via openalex
- doi:10.1002/jrsm.1044 via openalex
- doi:10.1080/19396368.2016.1251505 via openalex
- doi:10.29252/ijrm.14.1.53 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.jri.2023.103819 via openalex
- doi:10.1002/jrsm.1411 via openalex
- doi:10.1111/aji.12701 via openalex
- doi:10.1097/md.0000000000014062 via openalex
- doi:10.1186/s12958-021-00810-4 via openalex
- doi:10.1177/1933719113497286 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.12.006 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2018.10.007 via openalex
- doi:10.2307/2533446 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humrep/deac023 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humupd/dmu011 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.10.002 via openalex
- doi:10.3389/fendo.2021.725202 via openalex
Source provenance
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-05-10T10:54:07.678961+00:00
License: CC0
· commercial use OK