Frontiers in Veterinary Science (Sep 2021)
Immunization Against Inhibin Promotes Fertility in Cattle: A Meta-Analysis and Quality Assessment
Abstract
Superovulation and embryo transfer techniques are important methods in cattle breeding. Combined with traditional superovulation protocols, immunization against inhibin can further improve follicular development and embryo yield. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of immunization against inhibin in improving the fertility of cattle through meta-analysis and to provide better clinical veterinary practice guidance. Three English databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) were searched for research articles of immunizations against inhibin influence on cattle fertility. Literature screening, data extraction, and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In addition, the Systematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the included animal studies. Potentially relevant studies (317) were identified, and finally 14 eligible studies (all in English) were included. The results of meta-analysis revealed that immunization against inhibin has significant effects on improving the number of ovulations [mean difference (MD) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.31, 0.56)], embryos and unfertilized ova [MD = 4.51, 95% CI = (2.28, 6.74)], follicles of the three size categories, the incidence of multiple ovulations [OR = 22.50, 95% CI = (8.13, 62.27)], and the conception rate [OR = 2.36, 95% CI = (1.26, 4.40)]. Moreover, it improved the production of embryos [grades 1 embryos: MD = 3.84, (3.54, 4.15); grade 2 embryos: MD = −0.73, (−0.89, −0.57); grade 3 embryos: MD = −0.50, (−0.75, −0.25); degenerated embryos: MD = 1.16, (−0.51, 2.82); transferable embryos: MD = 2.67, (2.03, 3.31)] and the number of corpora lutea [MD = 1.25, 95% CI = (0.79, 1.71)]. In the above indicators, the differences between the two groups were statistically significant (all p < 0.0001). Additionally, according to the quality evaluation results, the risk of bias in the included studies is relatively high. The quality evaluation of the results of the included studies showed that the risk of bias mainly concentrated in the selective, performance, detection, and reporting of bias aspects.
Keywords
