Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27617038›Full record

ArticleAnalytical methods : advancing methods and applications2016

3D-printed Microfluidic Devices: Fabrication, Advantages and Limitations-a Mini Review.

Chengpeng Chen, Benjamin T Mehl, Akash S Munshi, Alexandra D Townsend, Dana M Spence, R Scott Martin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical methods : advancing methods and applications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing 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

109 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

49 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

6 authors.

Chengpeng ChenDepartment of Chemistry, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Benjamin T MehlDepartment of Chemistry, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Akash S MunshiDepartment of Chemistry, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Alexandra D TownsendDepartment of Chemistry, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Dana M SpenceDepartment of Chemistry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
R Scott MartinDepartment of Chemistry, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

Microchip-based Cell Reactor/Analysis SystemR15GM084470 · NIGMS · SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY · PI MARTIN, ROBERT SCOTT · 2008 to 2019
$1.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R15 GM084470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A mini-review with 79 references. In this review, the most recent trends in 3D-printed microfluidic devices are discussed. In addition, a focus is given to the fabrication aspects of these devices, with the supplemental information containing detailed instructions for designing a variety of structures including: a microfluidic channel, threads to accommodate commercial fluidic fittings, a flow splitter; a well plate, a mold for PDMS channel casting; and how to combine multiple designs into a single device. The advantages and limitations of 3D-printed microfluidic devices are thoroughly discussed, as are some future directions for the field.

Identifiers

PMID27617038
PMCPMC5012532

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.