Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36898671›Full record

ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2023

Recent Advances on Cell Culture Platforms for In Vitro Drug Screening and Cell Therapies: From Conventional to Microfluidic Strategies.

Beatriz D Cardoso, Elisabete M S Castanheira, Senentxu Lanceros-Méndez, Vanessa F Cardoso

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Tools and Technologies for Studying Cancer Metabolism.Cancer treatment and research · 2026
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Beatriz D CardosoPhysics Centre of Minho and Porto Universities (CF-UM-UP), Campus de Gualtar, University of Minho, Braga, 4710-057, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-9804-2553
Elisabete M S CastanheiraPhysics Centre of Minho and Porto Universities (CF-UM-UP), Campus de Gualtar, University of Minho, Braga, 4710-057, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5829-6081
Senentxu Lanceros-MéndezPhysics Centre of Minho and Porto Universities (CF-UM-UP), Campus de Gualtar, University of Minho, Braga, 4710-057, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-6791-7620
Vanessa F CardosoCenter for MicroElectromechanical Systems (CMEMS-UMinho), Campus de Azurém, University of Minho, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3039-5520
University of Minho · PTIkerbasque · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical translations of drugs and nanomedicines depend on coherent pharmaceutical research based on biologically accurate screening approaches. Since establishing the 2D in vitro cell culture method, the scientific community has improved cell-based drug screening assays and models. Those advances result in more informative biochemical assays and the development of 3D multicellular models to describe the biological complexity better and enhance the simulation of the in vivo microenvironment. Despite the overall dominance of conventional 2D and 3D cell macroscopic culture methods, they present physicochemical and operational challenges that impair the scale-up of drug screening by not allowing a high parallelization, multidrug combination, and high-throughput screening. Their combination and complementarity with microfluidic platforms enable the development of microfluidics-based cell culture platforms with unequivocal advantages in drug screening and cell therapies. Thus, this review presents an updated and consolidated view of cell culture miniaturization's physical, chemical, and operational considerations in the pharmaceutical research scenario. It clarifies advances in the field using gradient-based microfluidics, droplet-based microfluidics, printed-based microfluidics, digital-based microfluidics, SlipChip, and paper-based microfluidics. Finally, it presents a comparative analysis of the performance of cell-based methods in life research and development to achieve increased precision in the drug screening process.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Screening AssaysMicrofluidicsCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCell Culture TechniquesDrug Evaluation, Preclinicalbiomimeticscell culturescells-on-a-chipdrug screeningmicrofluidics

Identifiers

PMID36898671
PMCPMC11468737
OpenAlexW4323825591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.