ReviewDer Radiologe2020
Three-dimensional imaging and three-dimensional printing for plastic preparation of medical interventions.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a standardized intracranial vessel model from 3D time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography data of the SHIP cohort.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Quality assurance of 3D-printed patient specific anatomical models: a systematic review.3D printing in medicine · 2024Article
- Pixels to precision: Neuroradiology's leap into 3D printing for personalized medicine.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.