Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24273628›Full record

ReviewBiomicrofluidics2013

Microfluidic devices for cell cultivation and proliferation.

Masoomeh Tehranirokh, Abbas Z Kouzani, Paul S Francis, Jagat R Kanwar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomicrofluidics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing 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

71 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Aerosol Jet Printing in Biotechnologies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Organs on chips: fundamentals, bioengineering and applications.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Masoomeh TehranirokhSchool of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3216, Australia.
Abbas Z Kouzani
Paul S Francis
Jagat R Kanwar

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microfluidic technology provides precise, controlled-environment, cost-effective, compact, integrated, and high-throughput microsystems that are promising substitutes for conventional biological laboratory methods. In recent years, microfluidic cell culture devices have been used for applications such as tissue engineering, diagnostics, drug screening, immunology, cancer studies, stem cell proliferation and differentiation, and neurite guidance. Microfluidic technology allows dynamic cell culture in microperfusion systems to deliver continuous nutrient supplies for long term cell culture. It offers many opportunities to mimic the cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix interactions of tissues by creating gradient concentrations of biochemical signals such as growth factors, chemokines, and hormones. Other applications of cell cultivation in microfluidic systems include high resolution cell patterning on a modified substrate with adhesive patterns and the reconstruction of complicated tissue architectures. In this review, recent advances in microfluidic platforms for cell culturing and proliferation, for both simple monolayer (2D) cell seeding processes and 3D configurations as accurate models of in vivo conditions, are examined.

Identifiers

PMID24273628
PMCPMC3829894

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.