Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40612535›Full record

ReviewBiomicrofluidics2025

Point of care sepsis diagnosis: Exploring microfluidic techniques for sample preparation, biomarker isolation, and detection.

Mehraneh Tavakkoli Gilavan, Shadi Shahriari, P Ravi Selvaganapathy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomicrofluidics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Mehraneh Tavakkoli GilavanSchool of Biomedical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3122-3696
Shadi ShahriariDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2900-0998

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the third international consensus definition (sepsis-3), sepsis is defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction resulting from an uncontrolled host response to infection. Sepsis remains a leading cause of global mortality, largely due to the difficulty of achieving a timely diagnosis. The conventional diagnostic approaches for sepsis often face limitations in speed, portability, sensitivity, and specificity, which can lead to delayed or missed diagnoses. In response, microfluidic devices have emerged as powerful tools for point-of-care precise sample handling and preparation, enabling efficient isolation and detection of sepsis-causing bacteria and biomarkers. Fabrication techniques of these microfluidic devices, ranging from photolithography to xurography, have significantly advanced and paved the way for complex designs and improved functionality. Microfluidic platforms offer various benefits in sepsis diagnosis and prognosis. They facilitate rapid and automated sample processing, enhancing turnaround times and reducing the risk of contamination. Moreover, the integration of microfluidic systems with advanced detection methods enables the simultaneous analysis of multiple biomarkers, thereby enhancing diagnostic accuracy and prognostic capabilities. This review explores the evolution of sepsis diagnosis from traditional lab based methods to the use of microfluidic technology that can facilitate point of care diagnostics and discusses emerging trends in this field.

Identifiers

PMID40612535
PMCPMC12221350

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.