ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2022
Evaluation of the patient satisfaction of using a 3D printed medical casting in fracture treatment.
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and functional outcomes of upper extremity 3D-printed immobilization devices compared to traditional methods: a systematic review with limited meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- The Multidimensional Impact of Traditional Orthopaedic Casting and the Role of Emerging Immobilization Technologies: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A brief introduction to medical image processing, designing and 3D printing for orthopedic surgeons.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2023Review
- Evaluation and Comparison of Traditional Plaster and Fiberglass Casts with 3D-Printed PLA and PLA-CaCOPolymers · 2022Article
- Does a Customized 3D Printing Plate Based on Virtual Reduction Facilitate the Restoration of Original Anatomy in Fractures?Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to assess, through a questionnaire, the functionality, and efficacy of using three-dimensional (3D) printed medical casts. PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween February 2017 and March 2019, a total of 24 patients (14 males, 10 females; mean age: 33.1±9.4 years, range, 12 to 62 years) with upper extremity fracture who were applied 3D printed medical cast were included. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0). Each item is scored on a five-point scale.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 14 (range, 6 to 18) months. All fractures healed within four to six weeks without any complications. In all cases, there was no loss of reduction. The total mean QUEST 2.0 satisfaction score for the participants was 4.7. The ratings on each scale ranged from 4.5 to 4.9.
conclusionAlmost all patients with upper extremity fractures were satisfied with the 3D printed medical cast. The patients found the 3D printed medical cast to be comfortable, safe, easy-to-apply, lightweight, and effective.
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.