Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30050981›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2017

Medical 3D printing: methods to standardize terminology and report trends.

Leonid Chepelev, Andreas Giannopoulos, Anji Tang, Dimitrios Mitsouras, Frank J Rybicki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Additive manufacturing (3D printing) in superficial brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

5 authors.

Leonid Chepelev1Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road, Box 232, K1H 8L6 Ottawa, ON Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7010-3812
Andreas Giannopoulos2Department of Radiology, Applied Imaging Science Lab, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA USA.
Anji Tang2Department of Radiology, Applied Imaging Science Lab, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA USA.
Dimitrios Mitsouras2Department of Radiology, Applied Imaging Science Lab, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA USA.
Frank J Rybicki1Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Road, Box 232, K1H 8L6 Ottawa, ON Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical 3D printing is expanding exponentially, with tremendous potential yet to be realized in nearly all facets of medicine. Unfortunately, multiple informal subdomain-specific isolated terminological 'silos' where disparate terminology is used for similar concepts are also arising as rapidly. It is imperative to formalize the foundational terminology at this early stage to facilitate future knowledge integration, collaborative research, and appropriate reimbursement. The purpose of this work is to develop objective, literature-based consensus-building methodology for the medical 3D printing domain to support expert consensus.

resultsWe first quantitatively survey the temporal, conceptual, and geographic diversity of all existing published applications within medical 3D printing literature and establish the existence of self-isolating research clusters. We then demonstrate an automated objective methodology to aid in establishing a terminological consensus for the field based on objective analysis of the existing literature. The resultant analysis provides a rich overview of the 3D printing literature, including publication statistics and trends globally, chronologically, technologically, and within each major medical discipline. The proposed methodology is used to objectively establish the dominance of the term "3D printing" to represent a collection of technologies that produce physical models in the medical setting. We demonstrate that specific domains do not use this term in line with objective consensus and call for its universal adoption.

conclusionOur methodology can be applied to the entirety of medical 3D printing literature to obtain a complete, validated, and objective set of recommended and synonymous definitions to aid expert bodies in building ontological consensus.

Indexed as

3D printingAdditive manufacturingData integrationFreeform fabricationMedicineRapid prototypingStandardsTerminology

Identifiers

PMID30050981
PMCPMC6036766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.