ReviewMicrofluidics and nanofluidics2022
Microfluidics geometries involved in effective blood plasma separation.
Review in Microfluidics and nanofluidics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Red Blood Cell Deformability in Microfluidic Constrictions Under Flow and Wall Contact.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Continuous High-Throughput Plasma Separation for Blood Biomarker Sensing Using a Hydrodynamic Microfluidic Device.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Intelligent Microfluidics for Plasma Separation: Integrating Computational Fluid Dynamics and Machine Learning for Optimized Microchannel Design.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Looping Flexible Fluoropolymer Microcapillary Film Extends Analysis Times for Vertical Microfluidic Blood Testing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Sample-to-answer lateral flow assay with integrated plasma separation and NT-proBNP detection.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The last two decades witnessed a significant advancement in the field of diluted and whole blood plasma separation. This is one of the common procedures used to diagnose, cure and treat numerous acute and chronic diseases. For this separation purpose, various types of geometries of microfluidic devices, such as T-channel, Y-channel, trifurcation, constriction-expansion, curved/bend/spiral channels, a combination of any of the two geometries, etc., are being exploited, and this is detailed in this review article. The evaluation of the performance of such devices is based on the several parameters such as separation efficiency, flow rate, hematocrits, channel dimensions, etc. Thus, the current extensive review article endeavours to understand how particular geometry influences the separation efficiency for a given hematocrit. Additionally, a comparative analysis of various geometries is presented to demonstrate the less explored geometric configuration for the diluted and whole blood plasma separation. Also, a meta-analysis has been performed to highlight which geometry serves best to give a consistent separation efficiency. This article also presents tabulated data for various geometries with necessary details required from a designer's perspective such as channel dimensions, targeted component, studied range of hematocrit and flow rate, separation efficiency, etc. The maximum separation efficiency that can be achieved for a given hematocrits and geometry has also been plotted. The current review highlights the critical findings relevant to this field, state of the art understanding and the future challenges.
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.