Table 3. PRP as an alternative or adjunct to conventional treatment of recurrent implantation failure
Study/Year	Patients	Study design	Primary outcomes PRP vs. control	p
Bakhsh et al. (2022)	100	RCT	20% vs. 13.33% Pregnancy rate	Not informed
Li et al. (2022)	1629	Systematic review and Meta-analysis	↑ pregnancy ↑ live birth rates	p<0.01
Nazari et al. (2022)	393	RCT	↑ chemical pregnancy ↑ clinical pregnancy ↑ live birth rates	p<0.0001
Safdarian et al. (2022)	120	RCT	Implantation rate (28% vs. 11.9%) clinical pregnancy (51.6% vs. 26.6%) live birth rate (58.3% vs. 28.3%)	p<0.001 p=0.005 p=0.001
Deng et al. (2023)	1555	Systematic review and Meta-analysis	↑ Clinical pregnancy ↑ Implantation ↑ live birth rates	p<0.00001 p<0.00001 p<0.0007
Yahyaei et al. (2024)	80	RCT	↑ Clinical pregnancy ↑ live birth rates	p<0.0001 p<0.0001