SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2024
Validity of stem cell-loaded scaffolds to facilitate endometrial regeneration and restore fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advancing wound healing by hydrogel-based dressings loaded with cell-conditioned medium: a systematic review.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Fabrication and characterization of decellularized human endometrial hydrogel as a scaffold for in vitro embryo implantation: An experimental study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap: meta-epidemiological analysis on the clinical translation of stem cell-based therapies in women's reproductive diseases.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- The Use of Stem Cells in Assisted Reproduction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Free and encapsulated stem cells for skin regeneration.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Various stem cell-loaded scaffolds have demonstrated promising endometrial regeneration and fertility restoration. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of stem cell-loaded scaffolds in treating uterine injury in animal models. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. Improvements in endometrial thickness, endometrial glands, fibrotic area, and number of gestational sacs/implanted embryos were compared after transplantation in the stem cell-loaded scaffolds and scaffold-only group. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using forest plots. Results: Thirteen studies qualified for meta-analysis. Overall, compared to the scaffold groups, stem cell-loaded scaffolds significantly increased endometrial thickness (SMD = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.44, P < 0.00001; I² = 16%) and the number of endometrial glands (SMD = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.41, P < 0.00001; I² = 0). Moreover, stem cell-loaded scaffolds present a prominent effect on improving fibrosis area (SMD = -2.50, 95% CI: -3.07 to -1.93, P < 0.00001; I² = 36%) and fertility (SMD = 3.34, 95% CI: 1.58 to 5.09, P = 0.0002; I² = 83%). Significant heterogeneity among studies was observed, and further subgroup and sensitivity analyses identified the source of heterogeneity. Moreover, stem cell-loaded scaffolds exhibited lower inflammation levels and higher angiogenesis, and cell proliferation after transplantation. Conclusion: The evidence indicates that stem cell-loaded scaffolds were more effective in promoting endometrial repair and restoring fertility than the scaffold-only groups. The limitations of the small sample sizes should be considered when interpreting the results. Thus, larger animal studies and clinical trials are needed for further investigation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024493132.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.