The effectiveness and safety of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) compared to assisted reproductive technology or medically unassisted conception: a systematic review

Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility.

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility.

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.