Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37736018›Full record

ReviewBiomicrofluidics2023

Microfluidic pumps for cell sorting.

Leyla Akh, Diane Jung, William Frantz, Corrin Bowman, Anika C Neu, Xiaoyun Ding

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Microfluidic Nanoparticle Separation for Precision Medicine.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leyla AkhBiomedical Engineering Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9308-6090
Diane JungBiomedical Engineering Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8500-4162
William FrantzBiomedical Engineering Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0543-0992
Corrin BowmanBiomedical Engineering Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1800-6666
Anika C NeuPaul M. Rady Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0203-3128
University of Colorado Boulder · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID37736018
PMCPMC10511263
OpenAlexW4386862487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.