ArticleMedical engineering & physics2017
Red blood cell (RBC) suspensions in confined microflows: Pressure-flow relationship.
Article in Medical engineering & physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Red blood cell dynamics in extravascular biological tissues modelled as canonical disordered porous media.Interface focus · 2022Article
- [High throughput detection and characterization of red blood cells deformability by combining optical tweezers with microfluidic technique].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Microfluidic-based assays have become increasingly popular to explore microcirculation in vitro. In these experiments, blood is resuspended to a desired haematocrit level in a buffer solution, where frequent choices for preparing RBC suspensions comprise notably Dextran and physiological buffer. Yet, the rational for selecting one buffer versus another is often ill-defined and lacks detailed quantification, including ensuing changes in RBC flow characteristics. Here, we revisit RBC suspensions in microflows and attempt to quantify systematically some of the differences emanating between buffers. We measure bulk flow rate (Q) of RBC suspensions, using PBS- and Dextran-40, as a function of the applied pressure drop (ΔP) for two hematocrits (∼0% and 23%). Two distinct microfluidic designs of varying dimensions are employed: a straight channel larger than and a network array similar to the size of individual RBCs. Using the resulting pressure-flow curves, we extract the equivalent hydrodynamic resistances and estimate the relative viscosities. These efforts are a first step in rigorously quantifying the influence of the 'background' buffer on RBC flows within microfluidic devices and thereby underline the importance of purposefully selecting buffer suspensions for microfluidic in vitro assays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.