Fig 1.
PRISMA flow diagram of the selection process from identified studies to selected studies through Medline and Cochrane Library.
Table 1.
Prevalence (reported as percentages in parentheses) of different types of anti-phospholipid (anti-PL) antibodies in studies included in subgroup A of studies.
Table 2.
Prevalence (reported as percentages in parentheses) of different types of anti-phospholipid (anti-PL) antibodies in studies included in subgroup B of studies.
Fig 2.
Meta-analyses assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-PL antibodies in the studies in subgroup A between women with at least two implantation failures in IVF-ET (population index) vs. women with one successful IVF-ET (control).
Fig 2: meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of any type of anti-PL antibodies.
Fig 3.
Meta-analyses assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-PL antibodies in the studies in subgroup A between women with at least two implantation failures in IVF-ET (population index) vs. women with one successful IVF-ET (control).
Fig 3: meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-CL antibodies.
Fig 4.
Meta-analyses assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-PL antibodies in the studies in subgroup A between women with at least two implantation failures in IVF-ET (population index) vs. women with one successful IVF-ET (control).
Fig 4: meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of LA antibodies. +Abs: positive antibodies, total #: total number of participants.
Fig 5.
Meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-PL antibodies in the studies in subgroup B between women with at least two implantation failures in IVF-ET (population index) vs women with at least one successful spontaneous pregnancy or unselected healthy fertile women with no history of IVF-ET (control).
Fig 5: meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-CL-IgG antibodies.
Fig 6.
Meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-PL antibodies in the studies in subgroup B between women with at least two implantation failures in IVF-ET (population index) vs women with at least one successful spontaneous pregnancy or unselected healthy fertile women with no history of IVF-ET (control).
Fig 6: meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of LA antibodies.
Fig 7.
Meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-PL antibodies in the studies in subgroup B between women with at least two implantation failures in IVF-ET (population index) vs women with at least one successful spontaneous pregnancy or unselected healthy fertile women with no history of IVF-ET (control).
Fig 7: meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti- β2GPI antibodies.
Fig 8.
Meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-PL antibodies in the studies in subgroup B between women with at least two implantation failures in IVF-ET (population index) vs women with at least one successful spontaneous pregnancy or unselected healthy fertile women with no history of IVF-ET (control).
Fig 8: meta-analysis assessing the risk for implantation failure in relation to the presence or not of anti-PS antibodies. +Abs: positive antibodies, total #: total number of participants.