Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27282966›Full record

ReviewCytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry2017

Translating microfluidics: Cell separation technologies and their barriers to commercialization.

C Wyatt Shields, Korine A Ohiri, Luisa M Szott, Gabriel P López

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Capillary wave tweezer.Scientific reports · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Multi-Modal Microfluidics (MMicromachines · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

4 authors.

C Wyatt ShieldsNSF Research Triangle Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 27708.
Korine A OhiriNSF Research Triangle Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 27708.
Luisa M SzottNSF Research Triangle Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 27708.
Gabriel P LópezNSF Research Triangle Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 27708.

Funding

An Instrument for Negative Acoustic Contrast Bead-based Cell Sorting and StainingR21GM111584 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI YELLEN, BENJAMIN BIRON · 2014 to 2016
$544k
NIGMS NIH HHS R21 GM111584NIH HHS R21 GM111584
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in microfluidic cell sorting have revolutionized the ways in which cell-containing fluids are processed, now providing performances comparable to, or exceeding, traditional systems, but in a vastly miniaturized format. These technologies exploit a wide variety of physical phenomena to manipulate cells and fluid flow, such as magnetic traps, sound waves and flow-altering micropatterns, and they can evaluate single cells by immobilizing them onto surfaces for chemotherapeutic assessment, encapsulate cells into picoliter droplets for toxicity screenings and examine the interactions between pairs of cells in response to new, experimental drugs. However, despite the massive surge of innovation in these high-performance lab-on-a-chip devices, few have undergone successful commercialization, and no device has been translated to a widely distributed clinical commodity to date. Persistent challenges such as an increasingly saturated patent landscape as well as complex user interfaces are among several factors that may contribute to their slowed progress. In this article, we identify several of the leading microfluidic technologies for sorting cells that are poised for clinical translation; we examine the principal barriers preventing their routine clinical use; finally, we provide a prospectus to elucidate the key criteria that must be met to overcome those barriers. Once established, these tools may soon transform how clinical labs study various ailments and diseases by separating cells for downstream sequencing and enabling other forms of advanced cellular or sub-cellular analysis. © 2016 International Clinical Cytometry Society.

Indexed as

Cell SeparationDrug TherapyFlow CytometryMicrofluidicsTechnology TransferAnimalsHumanscell sortingcommercial translationflow cytometrylab on a chipmicrofluidic

Identifiers

PMID27282966
PMCPMC5149119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.