Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2023
The Role of Dehydroepiandrosterone in Improving in vitro Fertilization Outcome in Patients with DOR/POR: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis.
Систематический обзорМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Jing, Liu Bowen, Wen Jing, Qu Bing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although many trials have evaluated the use of dehydroepiandrosterone to improve outcomes in poor responders undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment, evidence supporting this approach is controversial. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing published data to further elucidate and supplement the use of Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) to improve the effectiveness of vitro fertilization in patients with diminished ovarian reserve or adverse ovarian reactions.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science databases were searched through December 2020. Oocyte yield, metaphase II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, top-quality embryos, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate were analyzed as relative outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed and fitted to both fixed-effects models and random-effects models.
RESULTS: Eight prospective randomized controlled studies, five prospective case-control studies, and three retrospective cohort studies were conducted with a total of 1998 participants. Meta-analyses of these studies showed a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved (WMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.80), metaphase II oocytes (WMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.40), fertilized oocytes (WMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.26), top-quality embryos (WMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.86), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61), and ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.46), although there was no difference in live birth rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.94) in the DHEA supplementation groups compared with that in the control groups.
CONCLUSION: Oral DHEA supplementation appears to improve some IVF outcomes. On the basis of this limited evidence, we conclude that further studies are required to provide sufficient data.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science databases were searched through December 2020. Oocyte yield, metaphase II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, top-quality embryos, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate were analyzed as relative outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed and fitted to both fixed-effects models and random-effects models.
RESULTS: Eight prospective randomized controlled studies, five prospective case-control studies, and three retrospective cohort studies were conducted with a total of 1998 participants. Meta-analyses of these studies showed a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved (WMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.80), metaphase II oocytes (WMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.40), fertilized oocytes (WMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.26), top-quality embryos (WMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.86), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61), and ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.46), although there was no difference in live birth rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.94) in the DHEA supplementation groups compared with that in the control groups.
CONCLUSION: Oral DHEA supplementation appears to improve some IVF outcomes. On the basis of this limited evidence, we conclude that further studies are required to provide sufficient data.