ArticleMicromachines2021
A Low-Cost 3-in-1 3D Printer as a Tool for the Fabrication of Flow-Through Channels of Microfluidic Systems.
Article in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process Study on 3D Printing of Polymethyl Methacrylate Microfluidic Chips for Chemical Engineering.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Microfluidic Platform for Physical and Immunological Detection and Capture of Circulating Tumor Cells.Biosensors · 2022Review
- Main Problems Using DEM Modeling to Evaluate the Loose Soil Collection by Conceptual Machine as a Background for Future Extraterrestrial Regolith Harvesting DEM Models.Micromachines · 2021Article
- A Review of the Methods of Modeling Multi-Phase Flows within Different Microchannels Shapes and Their Applications.Micromachines · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently published studies have shown that microfluidic devices fabricated by in-house three-dimensional (3D) printing, computer numerical control (CNC) milling and laser engraving have a good quality of performance. The 3-in-1 3D printers, desktop machines that integrate the three primary functions in a single user-friendly set-up are now available for computer-controlled adaptable surface processing, for less than USD 1000. Here, we demonstrate that 3-in-1 3D printer-based micromachining is an effective strategy for creating microfluidic devices and an easier and more economical alternative to, for instance, conventional photolithography. Our aim was to produce plastic microfluidic chips with engraved microchannel structures or micro-structured plastic molds for casting polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) chips with microchannel imprints. The reproducability and accuracy of fabrication of microfluidic chips with straight, crossed line and Y-shaped microchannel designs were assessed and their microfluidic performance checked by liquid stream tests. All three fabrication methods of the 3-in-1 3D printer produced functional microchannel devices with adequate solution flow. Accordingly, 3-in-1 3D printers are recommended as cheap, accessible and user-friendly tools that can be operated with minimal training and little starting knowledge to successfully fabricate basic microfluidic devices that are suitable for educational work or rapid prototyping.
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.