ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2026
In Vivo Effect of a Synthetic Amniotic Fluid on Fetal Lung and Gastrointestinal Tract: A Pre-Clinical Rodent Model.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAmnioinfusions in anhydramnios aim to promote fetal lung development, but currently used fluids (Normal Saline [NS], Lactated Ringer's [LR]) fail to mimic the intrauterine environment and increase reactive oxygen species (ROS). We developed a synthetic amniotic fluid (Amnio-well, AW) designed to reduce intrauterine ROS. This study evaluated the pulmonary and gastrointestinal effects of 2 formulations of AW compared with those of NS and LR in a pre-clinical model.
methodAt gestational age E17.5, pregnant rats underwent amniotic fluid replacement with NS, LR, AW, AW plus epidermal growth factor and transforming growth factor-β (AW++), or sham control. Fetal lungs were harvested at E20.5 for histology, fractional airspace, and blinded pathological evaluation. Surfactant protein (SP-A, SP-B, SP-C) expression and inflammatory gene panels were assessed in lungs and gastrointestinal (GI) tissue.
resultsNS and LR lungs demonstrated edema, macrophage infiltration, and reduced airspace (p < 0.001). AW improved SP-B and SP-C relative to control, whereas AW++ suppressed SP-B and SP-C (p < 0.05). Lung gene profiling showed NS/LR induced alterations in histamines, annexins, and immune recruitment, while AW closely resembled control. GI histology was similar across groups, though NS/LR altered TNF, prostaglandin, and adhesion pathways (p < 0.05).
conclusionAW reduced lung inflammation and enhanced surfactant expression compared with NS or LR, with minimal GI effects.
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.