Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29276669›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in chemical engineering2017

Bioprocess microfluidics: applying microfluidic devices for bioprocessing.

Marco Pc Marques, Nicolas Szita

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in chemical engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Biocatalysis in Continuous-Flow Microfluidic Reactors.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  19. Microfluidics in Biotechnology: Overview and Status Quo.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Marco Pc MarquesDepartment of Biochemical Engineering, University College London, Bernard Katz Building, Gordon Street, London WC1H 0AH, United Kingdom.
Nicolas SzitaDepartment of Biochemical Engineering, University College London, Bernard Katz Building, Gordon Street, London WC1H 0AH, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scale-down approaches have long been applied in bioprocessing to resolve scale-up problems. Miniaturized bioreactors have thrived as a tool to obtain process relevant data during early-stage process development. Microfluidic devices are an attractive alternative in bioprocessing development due to the high degree of control over process variables afforded by the laminar flow, and the possibility to reduce time and cost factors. Data quality obtained with these devices is high when integrated with sensing technology and is invaluable for scale-translation and to assess the economical viability of bioprocesses. Microfluidic devices as upstream process development tools have been developed in the area of small molecules, therapeutic proteins, and cellular therapies. More recently, they have also been applied to mimic downstream unit operations.

Identifiers

PMID29276669
PMCPMC5727670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.