Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34875046›Full record

ReviewHuman reproduction update2022

Novel microarchitecture of human endometrial glands: implications in endometrial regeneration and pathologies.

Nicola Tempest, Christopher J Hill, Alison Maclean, Kathleen Marston, Simon G Powell, Hannan Al-Lamee, Dharani K Hapangama

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human reproduction update, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Transcriptional Profiling of SSEA-1FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Mechanistic insights into intrauterine adhesions.Seminars in immunopathology · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicola TempestDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3633-1592
Christopher J HillDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.
Alison MacleanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5713-6959
Kathleen MarstonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4339-720X
Simon G PowellDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.
Hannan Al-LameeDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.
Dharani K HapangamaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Women's Health Research, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Member of Liverpool Health Partners, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0270-0150
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman endometrium remains a poorly understood tissue of the female reproductive tract. The superficial endometrial functionalis, the site of embryo implantation, is repeatedly shed with menstruation, and the stem cell-rich deeper basalis is postulated to be responsible for the regeneration of the functionalis. Two recent manuscripts have demonstrated the 3D architecture of endometrial glands. These manuscripts have challenged and replaced the prevailing concept that these glands end in blind pouches in the basalis layer that contain stem cells in crypts, as in the intestinal mucosa, providing a new paradigm for endometrial glandular anatomy. This necessitates re-evaluation of the available evidence on human endometrial regeneration in both health and disease in the context of this previously unknown endometrial glandular arrangement. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this review is to determine if the recently discovered glandular arrangement provides plausible explanations for previously unanswered questions related to human endometrial biology. Specifically, it will focus on re-appraising the theories related to endometrial regeneration, location of stem/progenitor cells and endometrial pathologies in the context of this recently unravelled endometrial glandular organization. SEARCH

methodsAn extensive literature search was conducted from inception to April 2021 using multiple databases, including PubMed/Web of Science/EMBASE/Scopus, to select studies using keywords applied to endometrial glandular anatomy and regeneration, and the references included in selected publications were also screened. All relevant publications were included. OUTCOMES: The human endometrial glands have a unique and complex architecture; branched basalis glands proceed in a horizontal course adjacent to the myometrium, as opposed to the non-branching, vertically coiled functionalis glands, which run parallel to each other as is observed in intestinal crypts. This complex network of mycelium-like, interconnected basalis glands is demonstrated to contain endometrial epithelial stem cells giving rise to single, non-branching functionalis glands. Several previous studies that have tried to confirm the existence of epithelial stem cells have used methodologies that prevent sampling of the stem cell-rich basalis. More recent findings have provided insight into the efficient regeneration of the human endometrium, which is preferentially evolved in humans and menstruating upper-order primates. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The unique physiological organization of the human endometrial glandular element, its relevance to stem cell activity and scarless endometrial regeneration will inform reproductive biologists and clinicians to direct their future research to determine disease-specific alterations in glandular anatomy in a variety of endometrial pathological conditions.

Indexed as

EndometriumUterine DiseasesAnimalsFemaleHumansMenstruationRegenerationStem Cells3D microarchitectureadenomyosisendometrial polypsendometrial stem progenitor cellsendometriosisendometriumfertilityplacenta accreta spectrumregeneration

Identifiers

PMID34875046
PMCPMC8888994
OpenAlexW4200241893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.