Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30424050›Full record

ArticleMicromachines2018

Characterization of 3D-Printed Moulds for Soft Lithography of Millifluidic Devices.

Nurul Mohd Fuad, Megan Carve, Jan Kaslin, Donald Wlodkowic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Micromachines, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 3D Printed Microfluidics.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Nurul Mohd FuadSchool of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia. nfua256@aucklanduni.ac.nz.
Megan CarveSchool of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia. s3437621@student.rmit.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2649-8727
Jan KaslinAustralian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia. jan.kaslin@monash.edu.
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

Increased demand for inexpensive and rapid prototyping methods for micro- and millifluidic lab-on-a-chip (LOC) devices has stimulated considerable interest in alternative cost-effective fabrication techniques. Additive manufacturing (AM)-also called three-dimensional (3D) printing-provides an attractive alternative to conventional fabrication techniques. AM has been used to produce LOC master moulds from which positive replicas are made using soft-lithography and a biocompatible elastomer, poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS). Here we characterize moulds made using two AM methods-stereolithography (SLA) and material-jetting (MJ)-and the positive replicas produced by soft lithography and PDMS moulding. The results showed that SLA, more than MJ, produced finer part resolution and finer tuning of feature geometry. Furthermore, as assessed by zebrafish (

Indexed as

biodevicesbiotestsLab-on-a-Chipmaterial jettingmillifluidicpolydimethylsiloxanesoft lithographystereolithography

Identifiers

PMID30424050
PMCPMC6187831

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.