Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34945320›Full record

ArticleMicromachines2021

Biomedical Microtechnologies Beyond Scholarly Impact.

Maria Vomero, Giuseppe Schiavone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Micromachines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Maria VomeroBioEE Laboratory, Electrical Engineering Department, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3721-0904
Giuseppe SchiavoneResearch Management & Innovation Directorate, King's College London, Tower Wing, Guy's Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7121-9825

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent tremendous advances in medical technology at the level of academic research have set high expectations for the clinical outcomes they promise to deliver. To the demise of patient hopes, however, the more disruptive and invasive a new technology is, the bigger the gap is separating the conceptualization of a medical device and its adoption into healthcare systems. When technology breakthroughs are reported in the biomedical scientific literature, news focus typically lies on medical implications rather than engineering progress, as the former are of higher appeal to a general readership. While successful therapy and diagnostics are indeed the ultimate goals, it is of equal importance to expose the engineering thinking needed to achieve such results and, critically, identify the challenges that still lie ahead. Here, we would like to provoke thoughts on the following questions, with particular focus on microfabricated medical devices: should research advancing the maturity and reliability of medical technology benefit from higher accessibility and visibility? How can the scientific community encourage and reward academic work on the overshadowed engineering aspects that will facilitate the evolution of laboratory samples into clinical devices?

Indexed as

bioelectronicsbioMEMSbiostability testingmedical devicesmedical engineeringmedical microtechnologymicro- and nano-fabrication technologiespreclinical validationreliability testingtranslational research

Identifiers

PMID34945320
PMCPMC8709221

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.