Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21522491›Full record

ArticleBiomicrofluidics2011

Stem cells in microfluidics.

Huei-Wen Wu, Chun-Che Lin, Gwo-Bin Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomicrofluidics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Therapeutic Scope of Orofacial Mesenchymal Stem Cells.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Spatially controlled stem cell differentiation via morphogen gradients: A comparison of static and dynamic microfluidic platforms.Journal of vacuum science & technology. A, Vacuum, surfaces, and films : an official journal of the American Vacuum Society · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Huei-Wen WuDepartment of Engineering Science, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan.
Chun-Che Lin
Gwo-Bin Lee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microfluidic techniques have been recently developed for cell-based assays. In microfluidic systems, the objective is for these microenvironments to mimic in vivo surroundings. With advantageous characteristics such as optical transparency and the capability for automating protocols, different types of cells can be cultured, screened, and monitored in real time to systematically investigate their morphology and functions under well-controlled microenvironments in response to various stimuli. Recently, the study of stem cells using microfluidic platforms has attracted considerable interest. Even though stem cells have been studied extensively using bench-top systems, an understanding of their behavior in in vivo-like microenvironments which stimulate cell proliferation and differentiation is still lacking. In this paper, recent cell studies using microfluidic systems are first introduced. The various miniature systems for cell culture, sorting and isolation, and stimulation are then systematically reviewed. The main focus of this review is on papers published in recent years studying stem cells by using microfluidic technology. This review aims to provide experts in microfluidics an overview of various microfluidic systems for stem cell research.

Identifiers

PMID21522491
PMCPMC3082338

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.