Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24404006›Full record

ReviewBiomicrofluidics2013

Review of microfluidic microbioreactor technology for high-throughput submerged microbiological cultivation.

Hanaa M Hegab, Ahmed Elmekawy, Tim Stakenborg

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 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Microbioreactor design for eukaryotic cell-based biomedical applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Kidney-on-a-chip: untapped opportunities.Kidney international · 2018
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Hanaa M HegabKACST-Intel Consortium Center of Excellence in Nano-Manufacturing Applications (CENA), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ; IMEC, Kapeldreef 75, Leuven, Belgium ; Institute of Advanced Technology and New Materials, City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications, Borg Elarab, Alexandria, Egypt.
Ahmed ElmekawyGenetic Engineering and Biotechnology Research Institute, Minufiya University, Sadat City, Egypt.
Tim StakenborgIMEC, Kapeldreef 75, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial fermentation process development is pursuing a high production yield. This requires a high throughput screening and optimization of the microbial strains, which is nowadays commonly achieved by applying slow and labor-intensive submerged cultivation in shake flasks or microtiter plates. These methods are also limited towards end-point measurements, low analytical data output, and control over the fermentation process. These drawbacks could be overcome by means of scaled-down microfluidic microbioreactors (μBR) that allow for online control over cultivation data and automation, hence reducing cost and time. This review goes beyond previous work not only by providing a detailed update on the current μBR fabrication techniques but also the operation and control of μBRs is compared to large scale fermentation reactors.

Identifiers

PMID24404006
PMCPMC3631267

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.