ReviewReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2026
Recent Trends in Tissue Engineering Strategies for Uterine Endometrial Regeneration: a Systematic Review.
Review in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endometrial injury is an important cause of infertility and adverse reproductive outcomes, but current treatments often fail to fully restore uterine structure and function. Tissue engineering strategies, including hydrogels, biodegradable scaffolds, 3D bioprinting, organoids, and microfluidic systems, have emerged as promising approaches for endometrial repair. This systematic review evaluated the available evidence on tissue engineering strategies for endometrial regeneration. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies published between January 2014 and May 2024. Of 3,381 records identified, 117 studies met the inclusion criteria. Due to substantial heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures, findings were synthesized qualitatively. Hydrogels and biomaterial scaffolds were the most frequently studied approaches, whereas organoids and 3D bioprinting showed potential for disease modeling and personalized regeneration. Microfluidic systems were rarely studied but may have future translational relevance. Tissue engineering approaches appear promising for endometrial repair. However, clinical evidence remains limited, and further human studies are needed to establish safety, efficacy, and long-term durability before routine clinical translation. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251046577.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42458200What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.