ArticleMicromachines2022
RETRACTED: Surface Hydrophilic Modification for Chip of Centrifugal Microfluidic Immunoassay System.
Article in Micromachines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of AI Tools in Citing Retracted Literature : Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- RETRACTED: Shi et al. Surface Hydrophilic Modification for Chip of Centrifugal Microfluidic Immunoassay System.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Designing Versatile Superhydrophilic Structures via an Alginate-Based Hydrophilic Plasticene.Micromachines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-05-21Concerns/Issues about Article · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The surface of a centrifugal microfluidic immunoassay system chip such as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is often hydrophobic, which leads to problems such as poor liquid transfer efficiency and easy-to-block siphon channels, leading to bad fluid control. Therefore, surface hydrophilic modification for such chips is necessary to improve the rapidity and sensitivity of the system. Chemical modification is commonly used, but there is little research on the hydrophilic effect of different concentrations of hydrophilic reagents. According to function requirements for different microchannels of the chip (some only need to ensure the liquid can flow into the next chamber, and some also need to ensure the function of "closing the door" during immunoassay incubation), we explored the best combination of hydrophilic reagent and concentration through experiments. Firstly, three hydrophilic reagents were used for modification. Secondly, the hydrophilic effects of different reagents and concentrations were explored by contact angle test, the influence of different modification methods on liquid transfer efficiency was characterized by residual liquid calculation in the chamber. Finally, the effect of different hydrophilic reagents on absorbance was also tested. By experimental results and comprehensively considering the stability of the modification effect and the function requirements, Tween-20 (2.0%
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.