Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33925101›Full record

ReviewMicromachines2021

Review of Microfluidic Methods for Cellular Lysis.

Emil Grigorov, Boris Kirov, Marin B Marinov, Vassil Galabov

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 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. eIF4E assembly intobioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Emil GrigorovFaculty of German Engineering Education and Industrial Management (FDIBA), Technical University of Sofia, 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria.
Boris KirovDepartment Industrial Automation, Technical University of Sofia, 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria.
Marin B MarinovFaculty of German Engineering Education and Industrial Management (FDIBA), Technical University of Sofia, 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria.ORCID 0000-0001-6784-1056
Vassil GalabovFaculty of German Engineering Education and Industrial Management (FDIBA), Technical University of Sofia, 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell lysis is a process in which the outer cell membrane is broken to release intracellular constituents in a way that important information about the DNA or RNA of an organism can be obtained. This article is a thorough review of reported methods for the achievement of effective cellular boundaries disintegration, together with their technological peculiarities and instrumental requirements. The different approaches are summarized in six categories: chemical, mechanical, electrical methods, thermal, laser, and other lysis methods. Based on the results derived from each of the investigated reports, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of those techniques. Although the choice of a suitable method is highly dependent on the particular requirements of the specific scientific problem, we conclude with a concise table where the benefits of every approach are compared, based on criteria such as cost, efficiency, and difficulty.

Indexed as

cell lysiscell membranemicrofluidicsreview

Identifiers

PMID33925101
PMCPMC8145176

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.