Correction to: 3D-printed spine surgery implants: a systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices.

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. Histological examination of a retrieved custom-made 3D-printed titanium vertebra : Do the fine details obtained by additive manufacturing really promote osteointegration?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  3D-printed spine surgery implants: a systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices.2020

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract