Commentary Letter to the Editor Regarding Impact of Intrauterine Infusion of Autologous Platelet‐Rich Plasma on Assisted Reproductive Outcomes in Patients With Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT

We commend Liang et al. for their rigorous meta‐analysis of intrauterine platelet‐rich plasma infusion in ART, particularly for recurrent implantation failure, but note issues affecting interpretation. Forest plot axes label “favors control/PRP” using a harm‐oriented convention, inverting standard visual interpretation. The methods state a random‐effects model, yet reported effect sizes and heterogeneity statistics match fixed‐effect estimation, likely narrowing confidence intervals and overstating precision for live birth rate. One figure omits two included studies without explanation, undermining transparency. Non‐significant subgroup findings are described as clinically meaningful, risking overinterpretation absent pre‐specified hypotheses or multiplicity correction. Accurate, outcome‐specific labeling and internally consistent model reporting are essential safeguards against misreading otherwise sound evidence, given its direct bearing on patient counseling and clinical decisions. We encourage a clarifying erratum to preserve this work's scientific integrity and clinical utility.