Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39610783›Full record

ReviewOptica2024

Photonic and electrochemical biosensors for near-patient tests-a critical comparison.

Thomas F Krauss, Lisa Miller, Christoph Wälti, Steven Johnson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Optica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors.

Thomas F KraussSchool of Physics, Engineering and Technology and York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
Lisa MillerSchool of Physics, Engineering and Technology and York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
Christoph WältiSchool of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Steven JohnsonSchool of Physics, Engineering and Technology and York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research into diagnostic biosensors is a vibrant field that combines scientific challenge with translational opportunities; innovation in healthcare is of great societal interest and is an essential element of future healthcare provision. Photonic and electrochemical biosensors are the dominant modalities, both scientifically and commercially, yet the two scientific communities largely remain separated and siloed. It seems astute to better understand what the two fields can learn from one another so as to progress the key scientific, translational, and commercial challenges. Here, we provide an analysis of the fundamental operational characteristics of photonic and electrochemical biosensors using a classification based on energy transfer; in photonics, this separates refractive index sensors from fluorescence and vibrational spectroscopy, while in electrochemistry, it distinguishes Faradaic from non-Faradaic processes. This classification allows us to understand some of the key performance characteristics, such as the susceptibility to fouling and dependence on the clinical matrix that is being analyzed. We discuss the use of labels and the ultimate performance limits, and some of the unique advantages of photonics, such as multicolor operation and fingerprinting, and critically evaluate the requirements for translation of these technologies for clinical use. We trust that this critical review will inform future research in biosensors and support both scientific and commercial developments.

Identifiers

PMID39610783
PMCPMC11601118

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.