Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652272›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction update2022

Bioengineering trends in female reproduction: a systematic review.

Emilio Francés-Herrero, Rosalba Lopez, Mats Hellström, Lucía de Miguel-Gómez, Sonia Herraiz, Mats Brännström, Antonio Pellicer, Irene Cervelló

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 62 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Exploring endometriosis through 3DMaterials today. Bio · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Emilio Francés-HerreroDepartment of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5202-8967
Rosalba LopezDepartment of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5539-5394
Mats HellströmLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3323-5618
Lucía de Miguel-GómezDepartment of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6556-9108
Sonia HerraizFundación IVI, IVI-RMA Global, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0703-6922
Mats BrännströmLaboratory for Transplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6081-9101
Antonio PellicerDepartment of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8254-863X
Irene CervellóFundación IVI, IVI-RMA Global, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7018-4971

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo provide the optimal milieu for implantation and fetal development, the female reproductive system must orchestrate uterine dynamics with the appropriate hormones produced by the ovaries. Mature oocytes may be fertilized in the fallopian tubes, and the resulting zygote is transported toward the uterus, where it can implant and continue developing. The cervix acts as a physical barrier to protect the fetus throughout pregnancy, and the vagina acts as a birth canal (involving uterine and cervix mechanisms) and facilitates copulation. Fertility can be compromised by pathologies that affect any of these organs or processes, and therefore, being able to accurately model them or restore their function is of paramount importance in applied and translational research. However, innate differences in human and animal model reproductive tracts, and the static nature of 2D cell/tissue culture techniques, necessitate continued research and development of dynamic and more complex in vitro platforms, ex vivo approaches and in vivo therapies to study and support reproductive biology. To meet this need, bioengineering is propelling the research on female reproduction into a new dimension through a wide range of potential applications and preclinical models, and the burgeoning number and variety of studies makes for a rapidly changing state of the field. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This review aims to summarize the mounting evidence on bioengineering strategies, platforms and therapies currently available and under development in the context of female reproductive medicine, in order to further understand female reproductive biology and provide new options for fertility restoration. Specifically, techniques used in, or for, the uterus (endometrium and myometrium), ovary, fallopian tubes, cervix and vagina will be discussed. SEARCH

methodsA systematic search of full-text articles available in PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published between January 2000 and September 2021. The search terms included: bioengineering, reproduction, artificial, biomaterial, microfluidic, bioprinting, organoid, hydrogel, scaffold, uterus, endometrium, ovary, fallopian tubes, oviduct, cervix, vagina, endometriosis, adenomyosis, uterine fibroids, chlamydia, Asherman's syndrome, intrauterine adhesions, uterine polyps, polycystic ovary syndrome and primary ovarian insufficiency. Additional studies were identified by manually searching the references of the selected articles and of complementary reviews. Eligibility criteria included original, rigorous and accessible peer-reviewed work, published in English, on female reproductive bioengineering techniques in preclinical (in vitro/in vivo/ex vivo) and/or clinical testing phases. OUTCOMES: Out of the 10 390 records identified, 312 studies were included for systematic review. Owing to inconsistencies in the study measurements and designs, the findings were assessed qualitatively rather than by meta-analysis. Hydrogels and scaffolds were commonly applied in various bioengineering-related studies of the female reproductive tract. Emerging technologies, such as organoids and bioprinting, offered personalized diagnoses and alternative treatment options, respectively. Promising microfluidic systems combining various bioengineering approaches have also shown translational value. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The complexity of the molecular, endocrine and tissue-level interactions regulating female reproduction present challenges for bioengineering approaches to replace female reproductive organs. However, interdisciplinary work is providing valuable insight into the physicochemical properties necessary for reproductive biological processes to occur. Defining the landscape of reproductive bioengineering technologies currently available and under development for women can provide alternative models for toxicology/drug testing, ex vivo fertility options, clinical therapies and a basis for future organ regeneration studies.

Indexed as

Genitalia, FemaleUterusAnimalsBioengineeringEmbryo ImplantationFemaleHumansPregnancyReproductionbioengineeringcervixendometriumfallopian tubesfemale reproductionfertility restorationmyometriumovaryuterusvagina

Identifiers

PMID35652272
PMCPMC9629485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.