Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30393367›Full record

ReviewMicromachines2018

3D-Printed Chips: Compatibility of Additive Manufacturing Photopolymeric Substrata with Biological Applications.

Megan Carve, Donald Wlodkowic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Micromachines, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Formulating biopharmaceuticals using three-dimensional printing.Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Megan CarveSchool of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia. s3437621@student.rmit.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2649-8727
Donald WlodkowicSchool of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia. donald.wlodkowic@rmit.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM) is ideal for building adaptable, structurally complex, three-dimensional, monolithic lab-on-chip (LOC) devices from only a computer design file. Consequently, it has potential to advance micro- to milllifluidic LOC design, prototyping, and production and further its application in areas of biomedical and biological research. However, its application in these areas has been hampered due to material biocompatibility concerns. In this review, we summarise commonly used AM techniques: vat polymerisation and material jetting. We discuss factors influencing material biocompatibility as well as methods to mitigate material toxicity and thus promote its application in these research fields.

Indexed as

3D printingadditive manufacturingbioassaylab-on-a-chippolymerstoxicity

Identifiers

PMID30393367
PMCPMC6187525

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.