ArticleJournal of nephrology2018
Thinking in 3D: a future for dialysis?
Article in Journal of nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent paper, entitled "Validation of an effective, low cost, free/open access 3D-printed stethoscope", recently appeared on PLoS One, reports on the validation of a 3D-printed stethoscope that costs about 100 times less than the classic Littman most of us carry in our pockets. The stethoscope model, called Glia, can be downloaded for free. This unusual paper may deepened our understanding of inequalities in health care around the world, but may also show how much we can learn from the inventive approaches employed by colleagues struggling to provide health care when they literally have nothing. Teaching students to monitor heart auscultation with an inexpensive, well-functioning 3D-printed stethoscope can be a lesson in creating a better world. Furthermore, the article reminds that good research can be done without sponsorship. The study design is clear; the methods are reproducible; validation is up to us. At a time in which we may have to re-think our complex relationship with the medical industry, this paper underlines the importance of intellectual independence. Will the 3D-printer bring a wind of innovation to our practice? Will it contribute to the development of low-cost artificial kidneys? These are good questions, still without answers. For now, we might limit to one first, basic question: are we ready for 3D thinking?
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.