ArticleMicromachines2020
High-Efficiency Plasma Separator Based on Immunocapture and Filtration.
Article in Micromachines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Centrifuge-free separation of plasma from milliliters of whole blood for point-of-care diagnostics.Lab on a chip · 2026Article
- Emerging Microfluidic Plasma Separation Technologies for Point-of-Care Diagnostics: Moving Beyond Conventional Centrifugation.Biosensors · 2025Review
- 3D Printed Devices for the Separation of Blood Plasma from Capillary Samples.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Article
- Microsampling tools for collecting, processing, and storing blood at the point-of-care.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Review
- Electrochemical Capillary-Flow Immunoassay for Detecting Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein Antibodies at the Point of Care.ACS sensors · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The shortcomings of standard plasma-separation methods limit the point-of-care application of microfluidics in clinical facilities and at the patient's bedside. To overcome the limitations of this inconvenient, laborious, and costly technique, a new plasma-separation technique and device were developed. This new separation method relies on immunological capture and filtration to exclude cells from plasma, and is convenient, easy to use, and cost-effective. Most of the RBCs can be captured and immobilized by antibody which coated in separation matrix, and residue cells can be totally removed from the sample by a commercially plasma purification membranes. A 400 µL anti-coagulated whole blood sample with 65% hematocrit (Hct) can be separated by the device in 5 min with only one pipette. Up to 97% of the plasma can be recovered from the raw blood sample with a separation efficiency at 100%. The recovery rate of small molecule compounds, proteins, and nucleic acid biomarkers is evaluated; there are no obvious differences from the centrifuge method. The results demonstrate that this method is an excellent replacement for traditional plasma preparation protocols.
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.