Skip to main content
. 2025 Jun 12;312(3):745–753. doi: 10.1007/s00404-025-08077-5

Table 1.

Clinical trials of PRP for TE

Author Study design Cut-off value of thin endometrium Sample size EMT of control group (mm) EMT of PRP group (mm) P value P value
Control PRP Chemical pregnancy Clinical pregnancy Ongoing pregnancy
Eftekhar et al. 2018 [20] RCT <7 mm 43 40 8.04 ± 0.27 8.67 ± 0.64 0.001 0.091 0.044 0.127
Nazari et al. 2019 [34] Double-blind RCT <7 mm 30 30 5.76 ± 0.97 7.21 ± 0.18 <0.001 0.031 0.048 /
Chang et al. 2019 [29] NRCT <7 mm 30 34 6.52 ± 0.31 7.65 ± 0.22 0.013 / 0.036 /
Author Study design Cut-off value of thin endometrium Sample size

EMT of prior to intervention

(mm)

EMT of post to intervention

(mm)

P value

Chemical pregnancy

Rate(%)

Clinical pregnancy

Rate(%)

Live birth

Rate(%)

Molina et al. 2018 [35] Prospective cohort * 19 / >9 mm / 10.5 / 26.3
Kim et al. 2019[36] Prospective cohort <7 mm 20 5.4 ± 0.8 6.0 ± 1.1 0.07 / 30.0 20.0
Chang et al. 2015 [19] Cohort <7 mm 5 5.9–6.6 ≥7.0 / 20.0 80.0 /
Nazari et al. 2017 [37] Cohort <7 mm 10 4.0–6.0 7.1–7.5 / 50.0 25.0 /
Tandulwadkar et al. 2017 [38] Cohort <7 mm 68 Average 5 Average 7.22 <0.00001 29.4 38.2 /
Wang et al. 2018 [24] Cohort <7 mm 20 5.55 ± 0.71 7.82 ± 1.04 <0.0001 / 60.0 /
Agarwal et al. 2020 [39] Cohort <7 mm 32 / / / 41.6 8.3 20.8
Kusumi et al. 2020 [40] Cohort <7 mm 36 5.86 ± 0.95 7.13 ± 0.89 / 18.8 15.6 /