Application of adult stem cells in obstetrics and gynecology: A scoping review
Kurniadi A., Zucha MA., Kusumanto A., Salima S., Harsono AB.
Systematic Review, published in Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39967607
- PMCID
- PMC11833614
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.eurox.2025.100367
Abstract (original English)
Background Advancements in regenerative medicine have led to the applicability of stem cell technology in various diseases. Stem cells that have self-renewable abilities may differentiate into several cell types to provide therapeutic potential. Among different stem cells, adult stem cells are considered as the safest with remarkable potential for therapeutic application. In this review, we provide current available evidence regarding the application of adult stem cells in medicine, especially in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Objective This scoping review aims to map and describe the current research on adult stem cell application in obstetrics and gynecology. Methods We performed a systematic search on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library in August 2024 to identify research articles involving adult stem cells in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. We used the Deduplicate website to filter articles based on keywords that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results were presented based on recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Results We found 42 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Some studies were clinical studies, whereas the majority were preclinical studies. We categorized the articles into clinical and preclinical studies to understand their applicabili
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.