Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32069922›Full record

ReviewMicromachines2020

Optical Micromachines for Biological Studies.

Philippa-Kate Andrew, Martin A K Williams, Ebubekir Avci

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Micromachines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Philippa-Kate AndrewDepartment of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-6107-4837
Martin A K WilliamsSchool of Fundamental Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand.
Ebubekir AvciDepartment of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Massey University, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-4687-0859

Funding

Marsden Fund MAU1714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optical tweezers have been used for biological studies since shortly after their inception. However, over the years research has suggested that the intense laser light used to create optical traps may damage the specimens being studied. This review aims to provide a brief overview of optical tweezers and the possible mechanisms for damage, and more importantly examines the role of optical micromachines as tools for biological studies. This review covers the achievements to date in the field of optical micromachines: improvements in the ability to produce micromachines, including multi-body microrobots; and design considerations for both optical microrobots and the optical trapping set-up used for controlling them are all discussed. The review focuses especially on the role of micromachines in biological research, and explores some of the potential that the technology has in this area.

Indexed as

life sciencesmulti-component micromanipulatorsoptical microrobotsoptical tweezersradiation damage

Identifiers

PMID32069922
PMCPMC7074663

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.