Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33578984›Full record

ReviewMicromachines2021

Lab-on-PCB and Flow Driving: A Critical Review.

Francisco Perdigones

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

1 author.

Francisco PerdigonesElectronic Engineering Department, Higher Technical School of Engineering, University of Seville, 41092 Seville, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3996-8970

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lab-on-PCB devices have been developed for many biomedical and biochemical applications. However, much work has to be done towards commercial applications. Even so, the research on devices of this kind is rapidly increasing. The reason for this lies in the great potential of lab-on-PCB devices to provide marketable devices. This review describes the active flow driving methods for lab-on-PCB devices, while commenting on their main characteristics. Among others, the methods described are the typical external impulsion devices, that is, syringe or peristaltic pumps; pressurized microchambers for precise displacement of liquid samples; electrowetting on dielectrics; and electroosmotic and phase-change-based flow driving, to name a few. In general, there is not a perfect method because all of them have drawbacks. The main problems with regard to marketable devices are the complex fabrication processes, the integration of many materials, the sealing process, and the use of many facilities for the PCB-chips. The larger the numbers of integrated sensors and actuators in the PCB-chip, the more complex the fabrication. In addition, the flow driving-integrated devices increase that difficulty. Moreover, the biological applications are demanding. They require transparency, biocompatibility, and specific ambient conditions. All the problems have to be solved when trying to reach repetitiveness and reliability, for both the fabrication process and the working of the lab-on-PCB, including the flow driving system.

Indexed as

actuatorsbiomedical applicationsflow drivinglab-on-PCBmicrofluidics

Identifiers

PMID33578984
PMCPMC7916810

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.