ArticleMicromachines2025
Geometric Parameter Optimization of 3D-Printed Microneedle Arrays Based on Comprehensive Mechanical Testing and Failure Analysis.
Article in Micromachines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study provides a systematic mechanical characterization and manufacturing analysis of stereolithography-printed microneedle arrays across six geometric designs (300-400 μm diameter and three aspect ratios: 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1) and three array configurations (1 × 1, 5 × 5, 10 × 10). Compression testing to 50 N revealed geometry-dependent optimization: low-aspect-ratio designs (Designs 1, 4, 5) exhibited superior performance in high-density arrays (10 × 10), while high-aspect-ratio designs (Designs 2, 3) performed better as single needles. Manufacturing success rates increased significantly with array density: from 44.2% (95% CI: 41.1-47.3%) for single needles to 67.3% (95% CI: 63.2-71.4%) for 10 × 10 arrays, with 400 μm diameter designs showing higher reliability. Two-way ANOVA confirmed significant effects of both geometric design [F(5, 72) = 145.3,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.