Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345268›Full record

ReviewBiomicrofluidics2024

Artificial blood for therapeutic and laboratory usage: Where do we stand?

Pulak Kumar Ray, Pawan Kumar, Somnath Roy, Arup Kumar Das, Prasanta Kumar Das

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomicrofluidics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Pulak Kumar RayDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0493-4217
Pawan KumarAdvanced Technology Development Centre, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4225-9585
Arup Kumar DasDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2323-4745
Prasanta Kumar DasDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6448-1075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The scarcity of blood for transfusion purposes has been widely acknowledged. Surgical therapeutic processes, war zones, and post-disaster treatments demand a huge amount of blood. Modern-day laboratories also require blood for bioengineering experimentation. Therefore, an artificially devised solution capable of mimicking the blood functions from biological and engineering relevance would be a noteworthy discovery of contemporary science. The experience drawn from discarded century-old blood substitutes has led us to technologically more advanced present-day solutions, which are better at carrying out the physiological functions of blood. Aiming at safety, stability, non-toxicity, and compatibility in terms of immuno-response, a remarkable number of substitutes are being tried to mimic the physiological properties and functions of red blood cells, platelets, plasma, and white blood cells. Despite significant efforts and time devoted, for transfusion, no product so far has been able to replace natural blood. This article puts together the important developments in blood substitutes that have evolved over the years, including substitutes for clinical as well as engineering requirements. It also points out the recent endeavors of synthesizing blood cells through modern synthetic routes. It has been highlighted that none of the blood substitutes have achieved the required efficacy so that they can be used

Identifiers

PMID39345268
PMCPMC11427025

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.