ReviewMaterials today. Bio2025
The application of tissue engineering strategies for uterine regeneration.
Review in Materials today. Bio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smart Bioinks for 4D Bioprinting: Requirements, Design, and Applications.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Biomaterials for Reproductive Restoration: Translating Engineering Innovations.Biomaterials research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uterine injuries, particularly damages to endometrium, are usually associated with abnormal menstruation, recurrent miscarriage, pregnancy complications, and infertility. Tissue engineering using cell-based, biomolecule-based, or biomaterial and scaffold-based strategies has emerged as a novel and promising approach for uterine regeneration. Stem cells, biomolecules, and porous scaffolds used alone or, very often, used in combination as a more effective treatment means have shown great potential in promoting uterine regeneration. The reported preclinical studies have indicated that appropriate tissue engineering strategies could safely and effectively reconstruct not only endometrium but also partial or even the whole uterine structure. However, the progress in the uterine regeneration area is slow in comparison to that of regenerating many other body tissues and hence it still remains a great challenge to apply uterine tissue engineering for clinical applications. In this review, conventional treatments for uterine-related diseases are briefly reviewed and discussed first. Subsequently, tissue engineering strategies (cell-based, biomolecule-based, biomaterial and scaffold-based, or their combinations) for uterine repair in preclinical studies and clinical trials are presented and analyzed. Finally, the challenges and perspectives in uterine regeneration are pointed and discussed. Despite various limitations and obstacles, the tissue engineering approach is viable and holds high promise for uterine regeneration.
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.