ReviewBiosensors2022
A review of Optical Point-of-Care devices to Estimate the Technology Transfer of These Cutting-Edge Technologies.
Review in Biosensors, 2022. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biophotonics point-of-care diagnostics in low-resource settings: a South African perspective.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Review
- Fiber-optic fluorescence reader for multiplex point-of-care monitoring.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Label matters: comparing gold nanoparticles and nanoshells with upconversion nanoparticles for quantitative lateral flow immunoassays.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Article
- Recent advances in microfluidic-based spectroscopic approaches for pathogen detection.Biomicrofluidics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the remarkable development related to Point-of-Care devices based on optical technology, their difficulties when used outside of research laboratories are notable. In this sense, it would be interesting to ask ourselves what the degree of transferability of the research work to the market is, for example, by analysing the relation between the scientific work developed and the registered one, through patent. In this work, we provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in the sector of optical Point-of-Care devices, not only in the research area but also regarding their transfer to market. To this end, we explored a methodology for searching articles and patents to obtain an indicator that relates to both. This figure of merit to estimate this transfer is based on classifying the relevant research articles in the area and the patents that have been generated from these ones. To delimit the scope of this study, we researched the results of a large enough number of publications in the period from 2015 to 2020, by using keywords "biosensor", "optic", and "device" to obtain the most representative articles from Web of Science and Scopus. Then, we classified them according to a particular classification of the optical PoC devices. Once we had this sampling frame, we defined a patent search strategy to cross-link the article with a registered patent (by surfing Google Patents) and classified them accordingly to the categories described. Finally, we proposed a relative figure called Index of Technology Transference (IoTT), which estimates to what extent our findings in science materialized in published articles are protected by patent.
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.