Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39817415›Full record

ReviewAnalytical chemistry2025

Screen-Printing vs Additive Manufacturing Approaches: Recent Aspects and Trends Involving the Fabrication of Electrochemical Sensors.

Luiz O Orzari, Cristiane Kalinke, Habdias A Silva-Neto, Danielly S Rocha, Jéssica R Camargo, Wendell K T Coltro, Bruno C Janegitz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Nanomaterial-Based Inkjet Printing for Electrochemical Sensing.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Additive fabrication for NMR probe builders.Progress in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy
    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

7 authors.

Luiz O OrzariDepartment of Nature Sciences, Mathematics and Education, Federal University of São Carlos, 13600-970 Araras, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0757-8572
Cristiane KalinkeInstitute of Chemistry, University of Campinas, 13083-859 Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
Habdias A Silva-NetoDepartment of Chemistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, 88040-900 Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5613-5727
Danielly S RochaInstitute of Chemistry, Federal University of Goiás, 74690-900 Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Jéssica R CamargoDepartment of Nature Sciences, Mathematics and Education, Federal University of São Carlos, 13600-970 Araras, São Paulo, Brazil.
Wendell K T ColtroInstitute of Chemistry, Federal University of Goiás, 74690-900 Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Bruno C JanegitzDepartment of Nature Sciences, Mathematics and Education, Federal University of São Carlos, 13600-970 Araras, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9707-9795

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A few decades ago, the technological boom revolutionized access to information, ushering in a new era of research possibilities. Electrochemical devices have recently emerged as a key scientific advancement utilizing electrochemistry principles to detect various chemical species. These versatile electrodes find applications in diverse fields, such as healthcare diagnostics and environmental monitoring. Modern designs have given rise to innovative manufacturing protocols, including screen and additive printing methods, for creating sophisticated 2D and 3D electrochemical devices. This perspective provides a comprehensive overview of the screen-printing and additive-printing protocols for constructing electrochemical devices. It is also informed that screen-printed sensors offer cost-effectiveness and ease of fabrication, although they may pose challenges due to the use of toxic volatile inks and limited design flexibility. On the other hand, additive manufacturing, especially the fused filament fabrication (or fused deposition modeling) strategies, allows for intricate three-dimensional sensor designs and rapid prototyping of customized equipment. However, the post-treatment processes and material selection can affect production costs. Despite their unique advantages and limitations, both printing techniques show promise for various applications, driving innovation in the field toward more advanced sensor designs. Finally, these advancements pave the way for improved sensor performance and expand possibilities for academic, environmental, and industrial applications. The future is full of exciting opportunities for state-of-the-art sensor technologies that will further improve our ability to detect and determine various substances in a wide range of environments as researchers continue to explore the many possibilities of electrochemical devices.

Identifiers

PMID39817415
PMCPMC11780578

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.