ReviewBiomicrofluidics2023
Microfluidic pumps for cell sorting.
Review in Biomicrofluidics, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gravity-driven microfluidic synthesis of lipid nanoparticles via vibrating sharp-tip mixing.Biofabrication · 2026Article
- Micro Blood Flow-Resolved Rheometry.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Acoustofluidic system for targeted antibody removal in transplantation: Enabling small-volume therapeutic apheresis.Science advances · 2025Article
- Microfluidic Nanoparticle Separation for Precision Medicine.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microfluidic cell sorting has shown promising advantages over traditional bulky cell sorting equipment and has demonstrated wide-reaching applications in biological research and medical diagnostics. The most important characteristics of a microfluidic cell sorter are its throughput, ease of use, and integration of peripheral equipment onto the chip itself. In this review, we discuss the six most common methods for pumping fluid samples in microfluidic cell sorting devices, present their advantages and drawbacks, and discuss notable examples of their use. Syringe pumps are the most commonly used method for fluid actuation in microfluidic devices because they are easily accessible but they are typically too bulky for portable applications, and they may produce unfavorable flow characteristics. Peristaltic pumps, both on- and off-chip, can produce reversible flow but they suffer from pulsatile flow characteristics, which may not be preferable in many scenarios. Gravity-driven pumping, and similarly hydrostatic pumping, require no energy input but generally produce low throughputs. Centrifugal flow is used to sort cells on the basis of size or density but requires a large external rotor to produce centrifugal force. Electroosmotic pumping is appealing because of its compact size but the high voltages required for fluid flow may be incompatible with live cells. Emerging methods with potential for applications in cell sorting are also discussed. In the future, microfluidic cell sorting methods will trend toward highly integrated systems with high throughputs and low sample volume requirements.
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.