ReviewCureus2026
Artificial Womb Technology: A Systematic Review of Preclinical Evidence and Implications for Neonatal Viability and Intensive Care.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial womb technology (AWT), also known as artificial placenta or ex-vivo uterine environment (EVE) therapy, is designed to mimic intrauterine conditions and support fetal physiology in extremely preterm neonates. Despite significant advances in large-animal artificial womb studies, there remains a critical gap in synthesizing how these findings translate to questions of viability, ethical governance, and regulatory readiness, making it unclear what evidence currently supports the progression toward human clinical trials. A systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus using terms such as "artificial womb," "artificial placenta," and species-specific keywords identified 22 studies. Eligible studies included intact fetal animals provided with ≥24 hours of artificial-womb support and reporting organ-level outcomes. While multiple studies showed that AWT could maintain fetal circulation and gas exchange, the four-week support reported with a pumpless arteriovenous (AV) biobag represents a single landmark study rather than a reproducible standard. In contrast, most pump-driven venovenous (VV) platforms achieved up to one week of support with evidence of pulmonary, neurological, and gastrointestinal protection. Innovations such as nitric oxide-releasing circuits and anticoagulation-free surfaces improved performance, though complications like cannulation failure, thrombosis, bleeding, infection, and hemodynamic instability persisted. Regulatory analyses emphasized that AWT represents partial ectogestation rather than conventional neonatal ventilation, requiring unique safety protocols and consent processes. As the technology evolves, it holds the potential to influence future viability thresholds at 22-24 weeks; however, no human trials have yet been conducted, and any clinical translation remains speculative. Successful eventual progression will require staged trials, standardized outcome measures, and rigorous ethical oversight.
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.