Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41975204›Full record

ReviewJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2026

Artificial womb technology; a scoping review of ethical considerations.

Felix R De Bie, Jennifer Paul, Janet Malek, Sharla Rent, E J T Verweij, Joseph Church, Juliana Gebb, Elliott Weiss, Brian W Gray, Hannah Johnston and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Felix R De Bie *Duke University Health System, Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Durham, NC, USA. felix.debie@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0363-1233
Jennifer Paul *Duke University Health System, Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Durham, NC, USA.
Janet MalekTrent Center for Bioethics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Sharla RentDuke University Health System, Department of Pediatrics, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8577-478X
E J T VerweijLeiden University Medical Center, Department of fetal medicine, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Joseph ChurchC.S. Motte Children's Hospital, University of Michigan, Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Juliana GebbThe Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Elliott WeissSeattle Children's Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Neonatology, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2473-9638
Brian W GrayRiley Hospital for Children, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Indiana University School of Mecicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2773-7227
Hannah JohnstonDuke University Health System, Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Durham, NC, USA.
Corin NavaProject Sweet Peas, Executive Director and Co-Founder, Warwick, RI, USA.
Katrina MolineHand to Hold, Executive Director, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1296-2749
Ryan M AntielDuke University Health System, Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As artificial womb technology (AWT) nears clinical translation for extreme prematurity, ethical interest has grown. To characterize this ethical landscape, we conducted a scoping review of ethical considerations of AWT searching Medline, Embase, and Web-of-Science through March 2025. Ethical considerations were extracted and organized using thematic analysis. In total, 247 papers were included: 114 (46.2%) focused on AWT for extreme prematurity and 133 (53.8%) on futuristic complete ectogenesis. Most papers were authored by bioethics scholars (157/247, 63.5%), and within this group, the majority addressed complete ectogenesis (98/157, 62.4%). Seven thematic categories were identified: Benefits and Harm; Decision-making; Moral and Legal Status; Justice and Access; Cultural and Societal Perspectives; Research Ethics and Speculative Concerns. Overall, AWT ethics literature is divided between concerns about "complete ectogenesis" and use for extreme prematurity. Insights from clinically focused literature and comprehensive stakeholder engagement are essential for ethical guidance of impending clinical translation of AWT.

Identifiers

PMID41975204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.