Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34533591›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022

Three-dimensional printing in otolaryngology education: a systematic review.

Marcos Antonio de Souza, Ricardo Ferreira Bento, Paula Tardim Lopes, Denis Melo de Pinto Rangel, Lucas Formighieri

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Marcos Antonio de SouzaOtolaryngology Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Av Dr. Eneas de Carvalho Aguir 255 6º, Andar sala 6167, São Paulo, 05403-000, Brazil. marcosantonio.med@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8228-0071
Ricardo Ferreira BentoOtolaryngology Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Av Dr. Eneas de Carvalho Aguir 255 6º, Andar sala 6167, São Paulo, 05403-000, Brazil.
Paula Tardim LopesOtolaryngology Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Av Dr. Eneas de Carvalho Aguir 255 6º, Andar sala 6167, São Paulo, 05403-000, Brazil.
Denis Melo de Pinto RangelOtolaryngology Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Av Dr. Eneas de Carvalho Aguir 255 6º, Andar sala 6167, São Paulo, 05403-000, Brazil.
Lucas FormighieriRadiology Department, Radiology at DAPI, Catholic Ladies League of Curitiba, Curitiba, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe progressive expansion of the technology that facilitates the development of three-dimensional (3D) printing within the field of otorhinolaryngology has opened up a new study front in medicine. The objective of this study is to systematically review scientific publications describing the development of 3D models having applications in otorhinolaryngology, with emphasis on subareas with a large number of publications, as well as the countries in which the publications are concentrated.

methodsIn this literature review, specific criteria were used to search for publications on 3D models. The review considered articles published in English on the development of 3D models to teach otorhinolaryngology. The studies with presurgical purposes or without validation of the task by surgeons were excluded from this review.

resultsThis review considered 39 articles published in 10 countries between 2012 and 2021. The works published prior to 2012 were not considered as per the inclusion criteria for the research. Among the 39 simulators selected for review, otology models comprised a total of 15 publications (38%); they were followed by rhinology, with 12 (31%); laryngology, with 8 (21%); and head and neck surgery, with 4 publications (10%).

conclusionThe use of 3D technology and printing is well established in the context of surgical education and simulation models. The importance of developing new technological tools to enhance 3D printing and the current limitations in obtaining appropriate animal and cadaver models signify the necessity of investing more in 3D models.

Indexed as

OtolaryngologyPrinting, Three-DimensionalHumansOtolaryngology educationSurgical educationThree-dimensional printingThree-dimensional prototyping

Identifiers

PMID34533591

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.