ReviewMicromachines2019
Evaluating Nanoparticles in Preclinical Research Using Microfluidic Systems.
Review in Micromachines, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generalized blood vessel models for magnetic nanoparticle-based oncology: geometric and microfluidic properties.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Revolutionizing Nanovaccines: A New Era of Immunization.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Efficient and Rapid Microfluidics Production of Bio-Inspired Nanoparticles Derived fromPharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Recent Advances of PDMS In Vitro Biomodels for Flow Visualizations and Measurements: From Macro to Nanoscale Applications.Micromachines · 2024Review
- New Opportunities and Old Challenges in the Clinical translation of Nanotheranostics.Nature reviews. Materials · 2023Article
- Nanoparticles: Taking a Unique Position in Medicine.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Dynamic microfluidic bioreactor-Hip simulator (DMBH) system for implant toxicity monitoring.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2021Article
- Best Practices for Preclinical In Vivo Testing of Cancer Nanomedicines.Advanced healthcare materials · 2020Review
- Lab-On-A-Chip for the Development of Pro-/Anti-Angiogenic Nanomedicines to Treat Brain Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Nanoparticles (NPs) have found a wide range of applications in clinical therapeutic and diagnostic fields. However, currently most NPs are still in the preclinical evaluation phase with few approved for clinical use. Microfluidic systems can simulate dynamic fluid flows, chemical gradients, partitioning of multi-organs as well as local microenvironment controls, offering an efficient and cost-effective opportunity to fast screen NPs in physiologically relevant conditions. Here, in this review, we are focusing on summarizing key microfluidic platforms promising to mimic in vivo situations and test the performance of fabricated nanoparticles. Firstly, we summarize the key evaluation parameters of NPs which can affect their delivery efficacy, followed by highlighting the importance of microfluidic-based NP evaluation. Next, we will summarize main microfluidic systems effective in evaluating NP haemocompatibility, transport, uptake and toxicity, targeted accumulation and general efficacy respectively, and discuss the future directions for NP evaluation in microfluidic systems. The combination of nanoparticles and microfluidic technologies could greatly facilitate the development of drug delivery strategies and provide novel treatments and diagnostic techniques for clinically challenging diseases.
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.