ReviewClinical and translational science2024
Strategies for developing 3D printed ovarian model for restoring fertility.
Review in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Engineering ovarian tissue via biofabrication and 3D bioprinting: Challenges and emerging perspectives.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Review
- Strategies in Tissue Regenerative Engineering for the Treatment of Human Infertility.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2025Review
- Can Molecular Attributes of Mammalian Granulosa Cells and Ovarian Putative Stem Cells Predestine Them to Be a Promising Tool for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine?International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The future of embryo engineering and fertility research in interdisciplinary collaboration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Strategies for developing 3D printed ovarian model for restoring fertility.Clinical and translational science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ovaries play a crucial role in the regulation of numerous essential processes that occur within the intricate framework of female physiology. They are entrusted with the responsibility of both generating a new life and orchestrating a delicate hormonal symphony. Understanding their functioning is crucial for gaining insight into the complexities of reproduction, health, and fertility. In addition, ovaries secrete hormones that are crucial for both secondary sexual characteristics and the maintenance of overall health. A three-dimensional (3D) prosthetic ovary has the potential to restore ovarian function and preserve fertility in younger females who have undergone ovariectomies or are afflicted with ovarian malfunction. Clinical studies have not yet commenced, and the production of 3D ovarian tissue for human implantation is still in the research phase. The main challenges faced while creating a 3D ovary for in vivo implantation include sustenance of ovarian follicles, achieving vascular infiltration into the host tissue, and restoring hormone circulation. The complex ovarian microenvironment that is compartmentalized and rigid makes the biomimicking of the 3D ovary challenging in terms of biomaterial selection and bioink composition. The successful restoration of these properties in animal models has led to expectations for the development of human ovaries for implantation. This review article summarizes and evaluates the optimal 3D models of ovarian structures and their safety and efficacy concerns to provide concrete suggestions for future research.
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.