Meta-analysis highlight the therapeutic potential of stem cells for premature ovarian failure

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Stem cell (SC) transplantation has shown potential as a therapeutic approach for premature ovarian failure (POF). Despite this, no quantitative analysis has been conducted on the efficacy of SC therapy for POF in humans. To address this gap, the present study conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the transplantation of SC in improving ovarian function among POF patients. A systematic review in this regard by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, clinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane's library databases was conducted to identify relevant studies, while associated reviews were also considered. The extracted data included parameters such as estradiol (E2), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), follicle count (FC), ovarian weight (OW), number of pregnancies, and live birth. As per the combined effect taking the last follow-up time, the level of FSH and AMH for the SC group was lower than these were at the baseline as (SMD: 1.58, 95% CI: 0.76 to 3.92, P-value: 0.185 > 0.05, I 2 : 94.03%) and (SMD: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.92, P-value: 0.001 2 : 0%) respectively. While the means of E2 and OW for the SC group was higher than these were at the baseline as (SMD: -0.47, 95% CI: -0.73 to -0.21, P-value: 0.001 2 : 38.23%) and (SMD: -1.18, 95% CI: -2.62 to 0.26, P-value: 0.108 > 0.05, I 2 : 76.68%) respectively. The overall effect size measured with proportion of pregnancy and live b

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.