ArticleGlobal spine journal2019
The Barrow Biomimetic Spine: Face, Content, and Construct Validity of a 3D-Printed Spine Model for Freehand and Minimally Invasive Pedicle Screw Insertion.
Article in Global spine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of awl for screw pilot hole creation increases strength of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion plate constructs in biomimetic model.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Design and 3D printing of pelvis phantoms for cementoplasty.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Article
- Utility of 3-dimensionally printed models for parent education in pediatric plagiocephaly.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- 3D-Printed Disease Models for Neurosurgical Planning, Simulation, and Training.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2022Article
- Utility of a Novel Biomimetic Spine Model in Surgical Education: Case Series of Three Cervicothoracic Kyphotic Deformities.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Development and first clinical use of a novel anatomical and biomechanical testing platform for scoliosis.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designDescription and evaluation of a novel surgical training platform.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the face, content, and construct validity of 5 novel surgical training models that simulate freehand and percutaneous (minimally invasive surgery [MIS]) pedicle screw placement.
methodsFive spine models were developed by residents: 3 for freehand pedicle screw training (models A-C) and 2 for MIS pedicle screw training (models D and E). Attending spine surgeons evaluated each model and, using a 20-point Likert-type scale, answered survey questions on model face, content, and construct validity. Scores were statistically evaluated and compared using means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance between models and between surgeons.
resultsAmong the freehand models, model C demonstrated the highest overall validity, with mean face (15.67 ± 5.49), content (19.17 ± 0.59), and construct (18.83 ± 0.24) validity all measuring higher than the other freehand models. For the MIS models, model D had the highest validity scores (face, content, and construct validity of 11.67 ± 3.77, 18.17 ± 2.04, and 17.00 ± 3.46, respectively). The 3 freehand models differed significantly in content validity scores (
conclusionsA 3-dimensional-printed spine model with incorporated bone bleeding and silicone rubber soft tissue was scored as having very high content and construct validity for simulating freehand pedicle screw insertion. These data has informed the further development of several surgical training models that hold great potential as educational adjuncts in surgical training programs.
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.