ReviewMicromachines2023
Microfluidic Blood Separation: Key Technologies and Critical Figures of Merit.
Review in Micromachines, 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.
- Computational analysis on design and optimization of low-frequency dielectrophoretic microfluidic lab on a chip forBioImpacts : BI · 2026Article
- Characterizing Recent PDMS Changes in Electrokinetic-Based Microfluidic Devices' Performance and Manufacturing for Cell Sorting Applications.Electrophoresis · 2025Article
- Development of Transdermal Drug Delivery Approaches to Combat Diabetes: An Update.Current drug metabolism · 2025Review
- Rapid Construction of Liquid-like Surfaces via Single-Cycle Polymer Brush Grafting for Enhanced Antifouling in Microfluidic Systems.Micromachines · 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
Blood is a complex sample comprised mostly of plasma, red blood cells (RBCs), and other cells whose concentrations correlate to physiological or pathological health conditions. There are also many blood-circulating biomarkers, such as circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and various pathogens, that can be used as measurands to diagnose certain diseases. Microfluidic devices are attractive analytical tools for separating blood components in point-of-care (POC) applications. These platforms have the potential advantage of, among other features, being compact and portable. These features can eventually be exploited in clinics and rapid tests performed in households and low-income scenarios. Microfluidic systems have the added benefit of only needing small volumes of blood drawn from patients (from nanoliters to milliliters) while integrating (within the devices) the steps required before detecting analytes. Hence, these systems will reduce the associated costs of purifying blood components of interest (e.g., specific groups of cells or blood biomarkers) for studying and quantifying collected blood fractions. The microfluidic blood separation field has grown since the 2000s, and important advances have been reported in the last few years. Nonetheless, real POC microfluidic blood separation platforms are still elusive. A widespread consensus on what key figures of merit should be reported to assess the quality and yield of these platforms has not been achieved. Knowing what parameters should be reported for microfluidic blood separations will help achieve that consensus and establish a clear road map to promote further commercialization of these devices and attain real POC applications. This review provides an overview of the separation techniques currently used to separate blood components for higher throughput separations (number of cells or particles per minute). We present a summary of the critical parameters that should be considered when designing such devices and the figures of merit that should be explicitly reported when presenting a device's separation capabilities. Ultimately, reporting the relevant figures of merit will benefit this growing community and help pave the road toward commercialization of these microfluidic systems.
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.