ReviewBiomicrofluidics2021
Increasing the packing density of assays in paper-based microfluidic devices.
Review in Biomicrofluidics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Additive manufacturing and three-dimensional printing in obstetrics and gynecology: a comprehensive review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Review
- Paper-Based Aptasensors: Working Principles, Detection Modes, and Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Porous Cellulose Substrate Study to Improve the Performance of Diffusion-Based Ionic Strength Sensors.Membranes · 2022Article
- 3D-printed microrobots from design to translation.Nature communications · 2022Review
- Disposable paper-based microfluidics for fertility testing.iScience · 2022Review
- Current Advancements and Future Road Map to Develop ASSURED Microfluidic Biosensors for Infectious and Non-Infectious Diseases.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Emergence of debubblers in microfluidics: A critical review.Biomicrofluidics · 2022Review
- Toilet-based continuous health monitoring using urine.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Deep Learning-Enabled Technologies for Bioimage Analysis.Micromachines · 2022Review
- Glioma-on-a-Chip Models.Micromachines · 2021Article
- Hemp-Based Microfluidics.Micromachines · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paper-based devices have a wide range of applications in point-of-care diagnostics, environmental analysis, and food monitoring. Paper-based devices can be deployed to resource-limited countries and remote settings in developed countries. Paper-based point-of-care devices can provide access to diagnostic assays without significant user training to perform the tests accurately and timely. The market penetration of paper-based assays requires decreased device fabrication costs, including larger packing density of assays (i.e., closely packed features) and minimization of assay reagents. In this review, we discuss fabrication methods that allow for increasing packing density and generating closely packed features in paper-based devices. To ensure that the paper-based device is low-cost, advanced fabrication methods have been developed for the mass production of closely packed assays. These emerging methods will enable minimizing the volume of required samples (e.g., liquid biopsies) and reagents in paper-based microfluidic devices.
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.