Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39234268›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

Unveiling the state of the art: a systematic review and meta-analysis of paper-based microfluidic devices.

Rodrigo García-Azuma, Karen Werner, Cristina Revilla-Monsalve, Oscar Trinidad, Nelly F Altamirano-Bustamante, Myriam M Altamirano-Bustamante

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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.

Rodrigo García-Azuma *Unidad de Investigación en Enfermedades Metabólicas, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Karen Werner *Unidad de Investigación en Enfermedades Metabólicas, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Cristina Revilla-MonsalveUnidad de Investigación en Enfermedades Metabólicas, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Oscar TrinidadUnidad de Investigación en Enfermedades Metabólicas, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Nelly F Altamirano-BustamanteServicio de Endocrinología, Instituto Nacional de Pediatría, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
Myriam M Altamirano-BustamanteUnidad de Investigación en Enfermedades Metabólicas, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Ciudad de México, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis present a comprehensive evaluation of paper-based microfluidic devices, focusing on their applications in immunoassays. These devices are emerging as innovative solutions to democratize access to diagnostic technologies, especially in resource-limited settings. Our review consolidates findings from diverse studies to outline advancements in paper-based microfluidic technology, including design intricacies and operational efficacy. Key advantages such as low cost, portability, and ease of use are highlighted. Materials and Methods: The review categorizes literature based on the design and operational nuances of these diagnostic tools, exploring various methodologies, fabrication techniques, detection methods, and applications, particularly in protein science. The meta-analysis extends to the diverse applications of these technologies, providing a framework for classifying and stratifying their uses in diagnostics. Results and discussion: Notable findings include a critical analysis of performance metrics, such as sensitivity and specificity. The review addresses challenges, including the need for further validation and optimization for broader clinical applications. A critical discussion on the validation processes, including cross-validation and rigorous control testing, is provided to ensure the robustness of microfluidic devices. This study offers novel insights into the computational strategies underpinning these technologies and serves as a comprehensive roadmap for future research, potentially broadening the impact across the protein science universe.

Indexed as

diagnostic technologiesimmunoassaysmeta-analysispaper-based microfluidic devicepoint-of-care diagnosticsresource-limited settings

Identifiers

PMID39234268
PMCPMC11372461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.