ArticleScientific reports2022
Time-efficient fabrication method for 3D-printed microfluidic devices.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microfluidics in Intelligent Fresh Produce Preservation and Detection: From Precision Sensing to Active Delivery Systems.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Review
- Decoding triple negative breast cancer bone metastasis: from 3D bioprinted models to clinical translation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- 3D Hybrid Bioprinting for Complex Multi-Tissue Engineering.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Democratization of Point-of-Care Viral Biosensors: Bridging the Gap from Academia to the Clinic.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Quality Evaluation of Small Features Fabricated by Fused Filament Fabrication Method.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Fabrication of a Microfluidic Test Device with a 3D Printer and Its Combination with the Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification Method to DetectMicromachines · 2024Article
- Advancing 3D printed microfluidics with computational methods for sweat analysis.Mikrochimica acta · 2024Review
- Automated analysis of mitochondrial dimensions in mesenchymal stem cells: Current methods and future perspectives.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Effect of print parameters on additive manufacturing of metallic parts: performance and sustainability aspects.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent developments in 3D-printing technology have provided a time-efficient and inexpensive alternative to the fabrication of microfluidic devices. At present, 3D-printed microfluidic systems face the challenges of post-processing, non-transparency, and being time consuming, limiting their practical application. In this study, a time-efficient and inexpensive fabrication method was developed for 3D-printed microfluidic devices. The material for 3D-printed microfluidic chips is Dowsil 732, which is used as a sealant or encapsulant in various industries. The curing time and surface hydrophobicity of the materials were evaluated. The results indicated that the surface of Dowsil 732 is hydrophilic. An optimization model of the direct ink writing method is proposed to establish a time-efficient and accurate fabrication method for microfluidic devices. The results indicate that the optimization model can effectively describe the change trend between printing speed, printing pressure, and channel wall accuracy, and the model accuracy rate exceeds 95%. Three examples-a micromixer, concentration gradient generator, and droplet generator-were printed to demonstrate the functionality and feasibility of the fabrication method.
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.