Cited by 97Reproductive Health and TechnologiesTraditional Chinese Medicine StudiesMedical Research and Treatments

Chinese herbal medicine for female infertility: An updated meta-analysis

Ried, Karin·2015·Complementary Therapies in Medicine

Abstract

Objectives To assess the effect of Traditional Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the management of female infertility and on pregnancy rates compared with Western medical (WM) treatment and update previous meta-analyses. Methods We searched the Medline and Cochrane databases until December 2013 for randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses investigating Chinese herbal medicine therapy for female infertility and compared clinical pregnancy rates achieved with CHM versus WM drug treatment. Results Forty RCTs involving 4247 women with infertility were included in our systematic review. Meta-analysis suggested a 1.74 higher probability of achieving a pregnancy with CHM therapy than with WM therapy alone (risk ratio 1.74, 95%CI: 1.56-1.94; p<0.0001; odds ratio 3.14; 95%CI: 2.72-3.62; p<0.0001) in women with infertility. Trials included women with PCOS, endometriosis, anovulation, fallopian tube blockage, or unexplained infertility. Mean pregnancy rates in the CHM group were 60% compared with 33% in the WM group. Conclusions Our review suggests that management of female infertility with Chinese herbal medicine can improve pregnancy rates 2-fold within a 3-6 month period compared with Western medical fertility drug therapy. In addition, fertility indicators such as ovulation rates, cervical mucus score, biphasic basal body temperature, and appropriate thickness of the endometrial lining were positively influenced by CHM therapy, indicating an ameliorating physiological effect conducive for a viable pregnancy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ctim.2014.12.004

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ried, K.
Affiliations
National Institute of Integrative Medicine (AU)
Corresponding author
Ried, Karin
Venue
Complementary Therapies in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
116-128
ISSN
0965-2299 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073400731
Cited by
96
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5
FWCI
10.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Complementary Therapies in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Traditional Chinese Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Medical Research and Treatments
Keywords
Chinese herbal medicine, female infertility, pregnancy rate, polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, anovulation, fallopian tube blockage, unexplained infertility, ovulation rate, basal body temperature, endometrial thickness
MeSH terms
Drugs, Chinese Herbal, Female, Humans, Infertility, Female, Medicine, Chinese Traditional, Phytotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review