Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31016005›Full record

ReviewEcology and evolution2019

3D Printing: Applications in evolution and ecology.

Matthew Walker, Stuart Humphries

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Let's Print an Ecology in 3D (and 4D).Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 3D-Printed Teeth in Endodontics: Why, How, Problems and Future-A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

2 authors.

Matthew WalkerSchool of Life Sciences University of Lincoln Lincoln UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9865-1375
Stuart HumphriesSchool of Life Sciences University of Lincoln Lincoln UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9766-6404

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the commercial and medical sectors, 3D printing is delivering on its promise to enable a revolution. However, in the fields of Ecology and Evolution we are only on the brink of embracing the advantages that 3D printing can offer. Here we discuss examples where the process has enabled researchers to develop new techniques, work with novel species, and to enhance the impact of outreach activities. Our aim is to showcase the potential that 3D printing offers in terms of improved experimental techniques, greater flexibility, reduced costs and promoting open science, while also discussing its limitations. By taking a general overview of studies using the technique from fields across the broad range of Ecology and Evolution, we show the flexibility of 3D printing technology and aim to inspire the next generation of discoveries.

Indexed as

3D printingecologyevolutionexperimental designmethods

Identifiers

PMID31016005
PMCPMC6468079

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.