Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31768197›Full record

ReviewBiomicrofluidics2019

Recent advances in microfluidics for drug screening.

Jiahui Sun, Antony R Warden, Xianting Ding

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomicrofluidics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Exploiting Device Deformability for Fluid and Particle Manipulation.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. A Plug-and-Play Volume Minimizing Micromixer.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Functional Liver Cell-Based Platforms in Biomedical Research.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  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

3 authors.

Jiahui SunState Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Institute for Personalized Medicine and School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China.
Antony R WardenState Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Institute for Personalized Medicine and School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3065-588X
Xianting DingState Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Institute for Personalized Medicine and School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With ever increasing drug resistance and emergence of new diseases, demand for new drug development is at an unprecedented urgency. This fact has led to extensive recent efforts to develop new drugs and novel techniques for efficient drug screening. However, new drug development is commonly hindered by cost and time span. Thus, developing more accessible, cost-effective methods for drug screening is necessary. Compared with conventional drug screening methods, a microfluidic-based system has superior advantages in sample consumption, reaction time, and cost of the operation. In this paper, the advantages of microfluidic technology in drug screening as well as the critical factors for device design are described. The strategies and applications of microfluidics for drug screening are reviewed. Moreover, current limitations and future prospects for a drug screening microdevice are also discussed.

Identifiers

PMID31768197
PMCPMC6870548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.