Systematic review highlights innovations in organ-on-a-chip design for drug discovery and ethical research improvements.
Organ-on-a-chip (OoC) devices simulate human organs within a microenvironment, potentially surpassing traditional preclinical methods and paving the way for innovative treatments. A thorough understanding of the current state of OoC design enables the development of more precise and relevant models that replicate not only the structure of organs but also their intricate cellular interactions and responses to external stimuli. This knowledge facilitates the optimization of biomimetic materials and allows for the real-time simulation of physiological microenvironments. By keeping abreast of new microfabrication techniques, we can explore opportunities to create customized and highly functional OoCs. Objective: To provide a comprehensive overview of microphysiological platform designs. Methods: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO under the number CRD42022352569. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The eligibility criteria included studies utilizing human tissue, either primary or secondary lineage cells. Results: A total of 9.790 papers were retrieved from the Scopus, Embase, IEEE and Web of Science databases. After removing duplicates and applying a 10-year publication filter, 3.150 articles were screened by title and abstract. Full-text analyses were then performed. Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review. In this review, we examine the principles of OoC design, focusing on structure, dimensions, cell culturing options and manufacturing techniques. We also examine recent advances and future prospects in the field. Conclusions: Microphysiological devices in health research can facilitate drug discovery and improve our understanding of human physiology. They contribute to more ethical research by reducing the number of animals used in experiments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nunes et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: