Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30626903›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Fabrication of Miniaturized Paper-Based Microfluidic Devices (MicroPADs).

E Brandon Strong, Spencer A Schultz, Andres W Martinez, Nathaniel W Martinez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Clinical Chemistry for Developing Countries: Mass Spectrometry.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2021
    Review
  13. Fabrication and Applications of Microfluidic Devices: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Biosensors-on-Chip: An Up-to-Date Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

E Brandon StrongDepartment of Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9834-4631
Spencer A SchultzDepartment of Chemistry & Biochemistry, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Andres W MartinezDepartment of Chemistry & Biochemistry, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA.
Nathaniel W MartinezDepartment of Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA. nmarti32@calpoly.edu.

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) 1709740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (microPADs) are emerging as cost-effective and portable platforms for point-of-care assays. A fundamental limitation of microPAD fabrication is the imprecise nature of most methods for patterning paper. The present work demonstrates that paper patterned via wax printing can be miniaturized by treating it with periodate to produce higher-resolution, high-fidelity microPADs. The optimal miniaturization parameters were determined by immersing microPADs in various concentrations of aqueous sodium periodate (NaIO

Identifiers

PMID30626903
PMCPMC6327054

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.