Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31258936›Full record

ReviewJournal of 3D printing in medicine2019

Antibiotics in 3D-printed implants, instruments and materials: benefits, challenges and future directions.

David H Ballard, Karthik Tappa, Christen J Boyer, Udayabhanu Jammalamadaka, Kavya Hemmanur, Jeffery A Weisman, Jonathan S Alexander, David K Mills, Pamela K Woodard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of 3D printing in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Rise of implantable drugs: A chronicle of breakthroughs in drug delivery systems.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Additive Manufacturing Processes in Medical Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  12. 3D-Printed Objects for Multipurpose Applications.Journal of materials engineering and performance · 2021
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

David H BallardMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7470-3364
Karthik TappaMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9857-8665
Christen J BoyerDepartment of Molecular & Cellular Physiology, Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, LA 71103, USA.
Udayabhanu JammalamadakaMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Kavya HemmanurMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Jeffery A WeismanUniversity of Illinois at Chicago Occupational Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Jonathan S AlexanderDepartment of Molecular & Cellular Physiology, Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, LA 71103, USA.
David K MillsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 71272, USA.
Pamela K WoodardMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.

Funding

Training OPportunities in Translational Imaging Education and Research (TOP-TIER)T32EB021955 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Hongyu An, Joseph Edward Ippolito · 2017 to 2026
$2.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB021955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

3D printing is an additive manufacturing technology, which permits innovative approaches for incorporating antibiotics into 3D printed constructs. Antibiotic-incorporating applications in medicine have included medical implants, prostheses, along with procedural and surgical instruments. 3D-printed antibiotic-impregnated devices offer the advantages of increased surface area for drug distribution, sequential layers of antibiotics produced through layer-by-layer fabrication, and the ability to rapidly fabricate constructs based on patient-specific anatomies. To date, fused deposition modeling has been the main 3D printing method used to incorporate antibiotics, although inkjet and stereolithography techniques have also been described. This review offers a state-of-the-art summary of studies that incorporate antibiotics into 3D-printed constructs and summarizes the rationale, challenges, and future directions for the potential use of this technology in patient care.

Indexed as

3D printingadditive manufacturingantibioticspatient specific medicinepersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID31258936
PMCPMC6587109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.