Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29607095›Full record

ReviewJournal of 3D printing in medicine2018

Auricular reconstruction from rib to 3D printing.

Chelsea L Reighard, Scott J Hollister, David A Zopf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of 3D printing in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Auricular reconstruction: where are we now? A critical literature review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Chelsea L ReighardMedical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Scott J HollisterDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
David A ZopfOtolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Pediatric Division, University of Michigan Health Systems, CS Mott Children's Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

Advanced Research Training in OtolaryngologyT32DC005356 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CORFAS, GABRIEL · 2002 to 2021
$3.5M
NCATS NIH HHS L40 TR001680NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC005356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human ear imparts critical form and function and remains one of the most challenging facial features to reconstruct. Over the past century, surgeons have developed numerous techniques and materials for total auricular reconstruction. Refined costal cartilage techniques have remained the gold standard for the past half-century. Recent advancements with novel materials, tissue engineering and 3D printing provide immense potential; however, prohibitive costs and regulatory steps remain as barriers to clinical translation.

Indexed as

3D printingauricular reconstructionbioscaffoldear reconstructiontissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID29607095
PMCPMC5824712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.