Background: Findings by epidemiologic studies on menopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and the risk of ovarian cancer are inconsistent. This study aimed to assess the association of menopausal HRT with the risk of ovarian cancer by histological subtype.Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and EmBase for relevant articles published from inception to August 2018. Pooled relative risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined with a random-effects model.Results: Thirty-six studies involving 4, 229, 061 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled RR of ovarian cancer was 1.29 (95%CI 1.19–1.40, I2 = 57.4%) for menopausal HRT. In subgroup analysis by study design, pooled RRs of ovarian cancer in cohort and case-control studies were 1.35 (95%CI 1.19–1.53) and 1.24 (95%CI 1.11–1.38), respectively. In subgroup analysis by continent, association of menopausal HRT with ovarian cancer was significant for North America (1.41 [1.23–1.61]), Europe (1.22 [1.12–1.34]), and Asia (1.76 [1.09–2.85]), but not Australia (0.96 [0.57–1.61]). Association differed across histological subtypes. Increased risk was only found for two common types, including serous (1.50 [1.35–1.68]) and endometrioid (1.48 [1.13–1.94]) tumors.Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that menopausal HRT may increase the risk of ovarian cancer, especially for serous and endometrioid tumors.

Background Among recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients, the rate of successful implantation remains relatively low due to the complex etiology of the condition, including maternal, embryo and immune factors. Effective treatments are urgently needed to improve the outcomes of embryo transfer for RIF patients. In recent years, many researchers have focused on immunotherapy using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to regulate the immune environment. However, the study of the G-CSF for RIF patients has reached conflicting conclusions. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to further explore the effects of G-CSF according to embryo transfer cycle (fresh or frozen) and administration route (subcutaneous injection or intrauterine infusion) among RIF patients. Method The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for literature published from the initial to October 2020. The meta-analysis, random-effects model and heterogeneity of the studies with I2 index were analyzed. Stata 15 was used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 684 studies were obtained through the databases mentioned above. Nine RCTs included 976 RIF patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis indicated that G-CSF improved the clinical pregnancy rate for both the fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles (fresh RR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.27–2.37, I2 = 0.0%, n = 410; frozen RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14–1.81, I2 = 0.0.%, n = 366), and for both subcutaneous injection and intrauterine infusion (subcutaneous RR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.33–2.23, I2 = 0.0%, n = 497; intrauterine RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09–1.78, I2 = 0.0%, n = 479), but the biochemical pregnancy rate of the RIF group was also higher than that of the control group (RR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.28–2.68; I2 = 20.1%, n = 469). There were no significant differences in the miscarriage rate (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.25–5.21: I2 = 63.2%, n = 472) and live birth rate (RR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.86–2.36; I2 = 52.5%; n = 372) when a random-effects model was employed. Conclusion The administration of G-CSF via either subcutaneous injection or intrauterine infusion and during both the fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles for RIF patients can improve the clinical pregnancy rate. However, whether G-CSF is effective in improving livebirth rates of RIF patients is still uncertain, continued research on the utilization and effectiveness of G-CSF is recommended before G-CSF can be considered mainstream treatment for RIF patients.

IntroductionThis meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) on pregnancy outcomes in thrombophilic women receiving in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).Material and methodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH with no treatment or placebo published from database inception until February 19, 2023. Primary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate, and secondary outcomes were the live birth rate, miscarriage rate, and the risk of bleeding events. The certainty of the evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Meta‐analysis was conducted using STATA 14.0.ResultsFive RCTs involving 1094 thrombophilic women receiving IVF/ICSI were finally included. Administration of LMWH was associated with statistically higher clinical pregnancy rate (4 RCTs, risk ratio [RR] 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–1.82, p < 0.001, low certainty evidence), implantation rate (5 RCTs, RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.25–1.78, p < 0.001, very low certainty evidence), and live birth rate (2 RCTs, RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.60–2.89, p < 0.001, very low certainty evidence), but with statistically lower miscarriage rate (2 RCTs, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15–0.86, p = 0.021, very low certainty evidence). However, using LMWH was linked to a higher risk of bleeding events (2 RCTs, RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.49–3.74, p < 0.001, very low certainty evidence).ConclusionsVery low certainty evidence suggests that administration of LMWH may benefit pregnancy outcomes in thrombophilic women receiving IVF/ICSI treatment, although it may also increase the risk of bleeding events. However, before putting our findings into practice, healthcare professionals should conduct an in‐depth evaluation of the available evidence and specific patient situations. Furthermore, due to the low methodological quality of the included studies, more high‐quality studies are needed to validate our findings in the future.