ReviewThe British journal of radiology2018
Image once, print thrice? Three-dimensional printing of replacement parts.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review of 3D printed medical implant design.3D printing in medicine · 2026Article
- Repair, Regeneration, and Replacement, Revisited (Redux).Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Article
- Application of 3D Printing Technology in the Treatment of Hoffa's Fracture Nonunion.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2023Article
- Application of 3D printed pelvic fracture related urethra and surrounding tissue as preoperative planning model.BMC urology · 2023Article
- Autologous Minimally Manipulated Homologous Adipose Tissue (AMHAT) for Treatment of Nonhealing Diabetic Foot Ulcers.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- Innovative Application of Three-Dimensional-Printed Breast Model-Aided Reduction Mammaplasty.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional printing for plastic preparation of medical interventions.Der Radiologe · 2020Review
- Article
- 3D printing from microfocus computed tomography (micro-CT) in human specimens: education and future implications.The British journal of radiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe last 20 years has seen an exponential increase in 3D printing as it pertains to the medical industry and more specifically surgery. Previous reviews in this domain have chosen to focus on applications within a specific field. To our knowledge, none have evaluated the broad applications of patient-specific or digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) derived applications of this technology.
methodsWe searched PUBMED and CINAHL from April 2012 to April 2017.
results261 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Proportions of articles reviewed: DICOM (5%), CT (38%), MRI (20%), Ultrasonography (28%), and Bio-printing (9%).
conclusionThere is level IV evidence to support the use of 3D printing for education, pre-operative planning, simulation and implantation. In order to make this technology widely applicable, it will require automation of DICOM to standard tessellation language to implant. Advances in knowledge: Recent lapses in intellectual property and greater familiarity with rapid prototyping in medicine has set the stage for the next generation of custom implants, simulators and autografts. Radiologists may be able to help establish reimbursable procedural terminology.
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.