Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32926194›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2020

Three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional printing for plastic preparation of medical interventions.

Daniel Cantré, Sönke Langner, Sebastian Kaule, Stefan Siewert, Klaus-Peter Schmitz, André Kemmling, Marc-André Weber

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 53% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel CantréInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, Rostock University Medical Center, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 6, 18057, Rostock, Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, Germany. daniel.cantre@med.uni-rostock.de.
Sönke LangnerInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, Rostock University Medical Center, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 6, 18057, Rostock, Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, Germany.
Sebastian KauleInstitute for Implant Technology and Biomaterials e. V., associated Institution of the University of Rostock, Friedrich-Barnewitz-Straße 4, 18119, Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.
Stefan SiewertInstitute for Implant Technology and Biomaterials e. V., associated Institution of the University of Rostock, Friedrich-Barnewitz-Straße 4, 18119, Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.
Klaus-Peter SchmitzInstitute for Implant Technology and Biomaterials e. V., associated Institution of the University of Rostock, Friedrich-Barnewitz-Straße 4, 18119, Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany.
André KemmlingInstitute of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Luebeck, Germany.
Marc-André WeberInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, Rostock University Medical Center, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 6, 18057, Rostock, Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, Germany.
University of Rostock · DEInstitute for ImplantTechnology and Biomaterials · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) imaging has been available for nearly four decades and is regarded as state of the art for visualization of anatomy and pathology and for procedure planning in many clinical fields. Together with 3D image reconstructions in the form of rendered virtual 3D models, it has helped to better perceive complex anatomic and pathologic relations, improved preprocedural measuring and sizing of implants, and nowadays enables even photorealistic quality. However, presentation on 2D displays limits the 3D experience. Novel 3D printing technologies can transfer virtual anatomic models into true 3D space and produce both patient-specific models and medical devices constructed by computer-aided design. Individualized anatomic models hold great potential for medical and patient education, research, device development and testing, procedure training, preoperative planning, and fabrication of individualized instruments and implants. Hand in hand with 3D imaging, medical 3D printing has started to revolutionize medicine in certain fields and new applications are developed and introduced regularly. The demand for medical 3D printing will likely continue to rise, as it is a promising tool for plastic preparation of medical interventions. However, there is ongoing debate on the appropriateness of medical 3D printing and further research on its efficiency is needed. As experts in 3D imaging, radiologists are not only capable of advising on adequate imaging parameters, but should also become adept in 3D printing to participate in on-site 3D printing facilities and randomized controlled trials on the topic, thus contributing to improving patient outcomes via personalized medicine through patient-specific preparation of medical interventions.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalModels, AnatomicPlasticsPrinting, Three-DimensionalHumansRadiologistsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPlasticsComputer-aided designProstheses and implantsQuality controlRadiologistsStereolithography

Identifiers

PMID32926194
OpenAlexW3086713876

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.