Systematic review shows Lactobacillus probiotics improve clinical pregnancy in infertile women undergoing ART, suggesting beneficial effects of prolonged treatment.
Abstract Objective To assess whether Lactobacillus-containing probiotics improve clinical pregnancy in infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART). Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD420251149619). PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from Jan 1, 2005, to Oct 31, 2025 for full-text randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in infertile adult women undergoing ART that compared Lactobacillus-containing probiotics (vaginal or oral) with placebo or no supplementation before standard ART care. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted published study-level data, and assessed risk of bias using RoB 2. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) using random-effects models (restricted maximum likelihood with Hartung–Knapp adjustment) and quantified heterogeneity with I². Results Seven RCTs (796 women; 399 probiotics, 397 control) were included. Probiotics were associated with higher clinical pregnancy than control (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07–2.07; I² = 29%). In absolute terms, the pooled risk difference was 0·124 (95% CI 0·014–0·234), corresponding to approximately 12·4 additional clinical pregnancies per 100 women treated. The 95% prediction interval was 0·76–2·94. Effects were larger with treatment duration > 14 days (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.44–2.75; I² = 0%) than with ≤ 14 days (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67–2.00). Six trials were judged to be at low risk of bias and one was judged to have some concerns; adverse events were not reported in any included trial. Conclusion Lactobacillus-containing probiotics may be associated with improved clinical pregnancy in women undergoing ART, particularly in trials using courses longer than two weeks. Larger, well-blinded multicentre RCTs evaluating live birth are needed to standardise clinically meaningful probiotic regimens and assess safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hiratsuka et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: