Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35479838›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2021

Scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines - A case study.

Netta Beer, Ingrid Hegger, Susanne Kaae, Marie Louise De Bruin, Natalja Genina, Teresa Leonardo Alves, Joelle Hoebert, Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. A case study on decentralized manufacturing of 3D printed medicines.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors.

Netta BeerDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ingrid HeggerCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Susanne KaaeDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marie Louise De BruinCopenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science, Department of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Natalja GeninaDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Teresa Leonardo AlvesCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Joelle HoebertCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Sofia Kälvemark SporrongDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: 3D printing is a promising new technology for medicines' production. It employs additive manufacturing techniques, and is ideal for producing personalized medicines (e.g., patient-tailored dose, dosage form, drug release kinetics). Objective: To investigate how 3D printing technologies can be implemented in a European pharmaceutical system, by suggesting different scenarios and assessing aspects that could affect its implementation. Method: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., from ministry, authorities, research organizations, pharmacies) in the Netherlands to elicit perspectives on 3D printing of personalized medicines. The Netherlands were chosen since it has a strong tradition in compounding. Five general scenarios were investigated: placing the 3D printers in industry, community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, compounding facilities, and in patients' homes. Content analysis was used, building on verbatim transcripts. Results: Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed. Regulatory, economic, ethical and organizational challenges were identified to varying degrees in the different scenarios. The industry and home scenarios were associated with the most challenges, hospital pharmacies and compounding facilities with the least. Other important aspects identified were the role of community pharmacies, and who should design the tablets to be printed. Conclusion: All potential scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines include challenges. These should be taken into account when pursuing the use of 3D printing of medicine.

Indexed as

3D printingCompoundingExtemporaneous preparationMagistral medicinesPersonalized medicineQualitative interviewsSocietal impact

Identifiers

PMID35479838
PMCPMC9031080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.