Endpoint

Clinical pregnancy rate

CAT:outcome/clinical-pregnancy-ratereported in risk ratio5 findings from 4 compounds

What moved it

5 findings · 4 compounds · 2 null · by evidence strength

Compound	Direction	Findings	Strongest evidence
resveratrol	no effect	1	Evidence strength: strong. Randomised human trials or their synthesis, with the effect's size and interval recorded and no recorded weakness outstanding.
coenzyme Q10	no effect 1 · up 1	2	Evidence strength: moderate. Human evidence with one recorded weakness, or capped at moderate by its design or by unread numbers.
berberine	up	1	Evidence strength: very limited. Human evidence with major recorded weaknesses, or non-human, uncontrolled or unverified evidence.
testosterone	up	1	Evidence strength: very limited. Human evidence with major recorded weaknesses, or non-human, uncontrolled or unverified evidence.

Reported to move it

3 findings

coenzyme Q10 — increases
ModerateEvidence strength: moderate. Human evidence with one recorded weakness, or capped at moderate by its design or by unread numbers.Finding
“Compared with the control group, CoQ10 (OR 2.22, 95%CI: 1.05 to 4.71) and DHEA (OR 1.92, 95%CI: 1.16 to 3.16) showed obvious advantages in improving the clinical pregnancy rate.”
Quoted verbatim from TEAS, DHEA, CoQ10, and GH for poor ovarian response undergoing IVF-ET: a systematic review and network meta-analysis..
Study

meta-analysis
Population

women with poor ovarian response (POR) undergoing IVF-ET, defined by Bologna criteria; network meta-analysis of 16 RCTs (2323 participants)
Effect 2.22 odds ratio, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.71
TEAS, DHEA, CoQ10, and GH for poor ovarian response undergoing IVF-ET: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.2023PMID:37464357Permalink
testosterone — increases
Very limitedEvidence strength: very limited. Human evidence with major recorded weaknesses, or non-human, uncontrolled or unverified evidence.Finding
“T likely increases clinical pregnancy rates (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.06; I² = 0%, 13 RCTs, N = 1152, moderate certainty evidence).”
Quoted verbatim from Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction..
Study

meta-analysis
Participants

1,152
Population

Infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction, mostly identified as poor responders to standard IVF protocols; pre-treatment with testosterone versus placebo or no treatment, both arms receiving the assisted reproduction cycle
Effect 2.17 odds ratio, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.06
Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction.2024PMID:38837771Permalink
berberine — increases
Very limitedEvidence strength: very limited. Human evidence with major recorded weaknesses, or non-human, uncontrolled or unverified evidence.Finding
“Berberine in combination with Western medicine significantly improved endometrial thickness (weight mean difference [WMD] 1.62 mm; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.39-1.85), ovulation rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.41; 95 % CI 1.26-1.60), and clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.96; 95 % CI 1.59-2.41) compared to Western medicine alone.”
Quoted verbatim from Berberine as adjuvant therapy for treating reduced fertility potential in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials..
Study

meta-analysis
Population

Women with polycystic ovary syndrome and reduced fertility potential; berberine added to Western medicine versus Western medicine alone (10 RCTs pooled)
Effect 1.96 risk ratio, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.41
Berberine as adjuvant therapy for treating reduced fertility potential in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.2024PMID:39236662Permalink

Measured, no effect detected

2 findings

resveratrol — no detected effect on
StrongEvidence strength: strong. Randomised human trials or their synthesis, with the effect's size and interval recorded and no recorded weakness outstanding.FindingNull result
“The pooled relative risk (RR) indicated no effect of resveratrol regarding clinical pregnancy rates (RR = 0.89; 95% CI [0.65, 1.23], P = 0.49).”
Quoted verbatim from Efficacy of resveratrol in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials..
Study

meta-analysis
Participants

101
Population

Women with PCOS, pooled across 2 RCTs (n=101: 50 resveratrol, 51 placebo).
Effect 0.89 risk ratio, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.23
Efficacy of resveratrol in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.2023PMID:37333786Permalink
coenzyme Q10 — no detected effect on
ModerateEvidence strength: moderate. Human evidence with one recorded weakness, or capped at moderate by its design or by unread numbers.FindingNull result
“No noticeable variations were demonstrated in clinical pregnancy rates (P = 0.888), lower miscarriage rates (p = 0.676), or twin pregnancies (p = 0.792); however, CoQ10 appeared to demonstrate promising outcomes (Table 3).”
Quoted verbatim from Coenzyme Q10 Impact on Ovarian Reserve Measures and the Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Outcomes in Women with Poor Ovarian Response: A Randomized Controlled Study..
Study

RCT
Dose

Coenzyme Q10 200 mg twice daily (Synapse CoQ10 200 mg, Synapse Pharm), started one month before the ICSI cycle and continued through it
Population

Women aged 25 to 45 with poor ovarian response by the Bologna criteria undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection; secondary endpoint.
Coenzyme Q10 Impact on Ovarian Reserve Measures and the Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Outcomes in Women with Poor Ovarian Response: A Randomized Controlled Study.2026PMID:41800295Permalink

How it is measured

Proportion of participants or treatment cycles with an ultrasound-confirmed intrauterine gestational sac, typically at 6 to 7 weeks. The denominator - per woman, per cycle started, or per embryo transfer - is recorded with each finding and materially changes the estimate.

Measured, not recorded

Subject: clinical pregnancy rate
Measurements: 19 measurements
Recorded as a finding: No

Show what was measured

Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect
No differences in clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were noted in statistical logistic regression analysis between the four intake groups
PMID:12036083 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, 34.2% vs. 23.7%
Not recorded as a finding: the sentence states a direction word ("higher") with a full estimate but calls the result statistically insignificant, and the pregnancy-ascertainment method is not named (no ultrasound-confirmed gestational sac stated, as clinical-pregnancy-rate requires)
The administration of vitamin C during the period of hormonal stimulation showed a statistically insignificant impact in terms of the higher number of pregnancies (34.2% vs. 23.7%).
PMID:12884545 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect
clinical pregnancy rate 1.55 (95% CI 0.98-2.47; I2=68%; p<0.01)
PMID:34592079 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.05, n = 252
no significant improvement in pregnancy rates when compared to control groups (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.55–2.46; n = 252, RCT = 4, P > 0.05)
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, n = 301
Study population | 113 per 1000 | 116 per 1000 | 61–221 | 1.03 (0.54–1.96) | 301 | 5 RCTs | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | LOWa,b
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.05, n = 30
or LAC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13–3.44; n = 30, RCT = 1, P > 0.05)
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.05, n = 106
the three other studies did not show significant differences between the two groups (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.67–5.36; n = 106, RCT = 3, P > 0.05, I2 = 0%)
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.05, n = 165
Patients treated with either LC (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.28–1.87; n = 165, RCT = 3, P > 0.05, I2 = 0%)
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
p = 0.241
No significant difference was detected in chemical (14/25 (56%) vs. 11/25 (44%); two-tailed P = 0.414), clinical (11/25 (44%) vs. 10/25 (40%); two-tailed P = 0.241), or multiple pregnancy rates (4/25 (16%) vs. 3/25 (12%); two-tailed P = 1.000) between the two groups.
PMID:37020589 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.23, p = 0.49, n = 101
The pooled relative risk (RR) indicated no effect of resveratrol regarding clinical pregnancy rates (RR = 0.89; 95% CI [0.65, 1.23], P = 0.49).
PMID:37333786 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.71
The clinical pregnancy rate /FET cycle | 17 /35 (48.5%) | 20 /38 (52.6%) | 0.71
PMID:38191449 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.58
Clinical pregnancy rate/ fresh ET | 1/7 (14.3%) | 3/9 (33.3%) | 0.58
PMID:38191449 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.63 to 2.43, p = 0.53, p = 0.53
The clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the AST group than in the placebo group (43% vs. 38%), but the difference was not statistically significant (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.63 to 2.43, p = 0.53).
PMID:39127677 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
increases
clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.96; 95 % CI 1.59-2.41)
PMID:39236662 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
p = 0.695
Clinical pregnancy rate, n (%) | 5/24 (20.8%) | 4/23 (17.4%) | 0.695
PMID:39482765 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
increases
Furthermore, the Melatonin group significantly increased the incidence of clinical pregnancy.
PMID:39780224 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.09, n = 334
Clinical pregnancy rate | 4 | 334 | I2 = 0% P=0.76 | Fixed | 1.53 [0.93, 2.53] | 0.09
PMID:40190407 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
Pacchiarotti et al. reported 63.3% clinical pregnancy rate
PMID:40190407 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.888
No noticeable variations were demonstrated in clinical pregnancy rates (P = 0.888), lower miscarriage rates (p = 0.676), or twin pregnancies (p = 0.792); however, CoQ10 appeared to demonstrate promising outcomes (Table 3).
PMID:41800295 · one of two readings recorded this

Sources cited

5 papers

Subject: clinical pregnancy rate
Findings: 5
Papers: 5

Compound

Direction

Findings

Strongest evidence

no effect

no effect 1 · up 1

Measured, not recorded

Subject

clinical pregnancy rate

Measurements

19 measurements

Recorded as a finding

Show what was measured

Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect
No differences in clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were noted in statistical logistic regression analysis between the four intake groups
PMID:12036083 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, 34.2% vs. 23.7%
Not recorded as a finding: the sentence states a direction word ("higher") with a full estimate but calls the result statistically insignificant, and the pregnancy-ascertainment method is not named (no ultrasound-confirmed gestational sac stated, as clinical-pregnancy-rate requires)
The administration of vitamin C during the period of hormonal stimulation showed a statistically insignificant impact in terms of the higher number of pregnancies (34.2% vs. 23.7%).
PMID:12884545 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect
clinical pregnancy rate 1.55 (95% CI 0.98-2.47; I2=68%; p<0.01)
PMID:34592079 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.05, n = 252
no significant improvement in pregnancy rates when compared to control groups (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.55–2.46; n = 252, RCT = 4, P > 0.05)
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, n = 301
Study population | 113 per 1000 | 116 per 1000 | 61–221 | 1.03 (0.54–1.96) | 301 | 5 RCTs | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ | LOWa,b
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.05, n = 30
or LAC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.13–3.44; n = 30, RCT = 1, P > 0.05)
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.05, n = 106
the three other studies did not show significant differences between the two groups (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.67–5.36; n = 106, RCT = 3, P > 0.05, I2 = 0%)
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.05, n = 165
Patients treated with either LC (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.28–1.87; n = 165, RCT = 3, P > 0.05, I2 = 0%)
PMID:35128424 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
p = 0.241
No significant difference was detected in chemical (14/25 (56%) vs. 11/25 (44%); two-tailed P = 0.414), clinical (11/25 (44%) vs. 10/25 (40%); two-tailed P = 0.241), or multiple pregnancy rates (4/25 (16%) vs. 3/25 (12%); two-tailed P = 1.000) between the two groups.
PMID:37020589 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.23, p = 0.49, n = 101
The pooled relative risk (RR) indicated no effect of resveratrol regarding clinical pregnancy rates (RR = 0.89; 95% CI [0.65, 1.23], P = 0.49).
PMID:37333786 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.71
The clinical pregnancy rate /FET cycle | 17 /35 (48.5%) | 20 /38 (52.6%) | 0.71
PMID:38191449 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.58
Clinical pregnancy rate/ fresh ET | 1/7 (14.3%) | 3/9 (33.3%) | 0.58
PMID:38191449 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.63 to 2.43, p = 0.53, p = 0.53
The clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the AST group than in the placebo group (43% vs. 38%), but the difference was not statistically significant (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.63 to 2.43, p = 0.53).
PMID:39127677 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
increases
clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.96; 95 % CI 1.59-2.41)
PMID:39236662 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
p = 0.695
Clinical pregnancy rate, n (%) | 5/24 (20.8%) | 4/23 (17.4%) | 0.695
PMID:39482765 · one of two readings recorded this
clinical pregnancy rate
increases
Furthermore, the Melatonin group significantly increased the incidence of clinical pregnancy.
PMID:39780224 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.09, n = 334
Clinical pregnancy rate | 4 | 334 | I2 = 0% P=0.76 | Fixed | 1.53 [0.93, 2.53] | 0.09
PMID:40190407 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
Pacchiarotti et al. reported 63.3% clinical pregnancy rate
PMID:40190407 · one of two readings recorded this
Clinical pregnancy rate
no effect, p = 0.888
No noticeable variations were demonstrated in clinical pregnancy rates (P = 0.888), lower miscarriage rates (p = 0.676), or twin pregnancies (p = 0.792); however, CoQ10 appeared to demonstrate promising outcomes (Table 3).
PMID:41800295 · one of two readings recorded this