ArticleCureus2023
Development of a Survey Tool: Understanding the Patient Experience With Personalized 3D Models in Surgical Patient Education.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using 3D-printing technology for patient education: a review of the literature.3D printing in medicine · 2025Review
- Enhancing Patient Comprehension in Skull-Base Meningioma Surgery through 3D Volumetric Reconstructions: A Cost-Effective Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) printing has been increasingly utilized in the healthcare sector for many applications including guiding surgical procedures, creating medical devices, and producing custom prosthetics. As personalized medicine becomes more accessible and desired, 3D printed models emerge as a potential tool in providing patient-specific education. These personalized 3D models are at the intersection of technological innovation and medical education. Our study group utilized a modified Delphi process to create a comprehensive survey tool assessing patient experience with personalized 3D models in preoperative education.
methodsA rigorous literature review was conducted of prior patient education survey tools in surgical cases across specialties involving personalized 3D printed models. Through categorization and mapping, a core study team reviewed individual questions, removed duplicates, and edited them into generalizable form. A modified Delphi process was then used to solicit feedback on question clarity and relevance from both 3D printing healthcare experts and patients to create a final survey. Results: 173 survey questions from the literature were evaluated by the core study team, yielding 31 unique questions for further review. After multiple rounds of feedback, a final survey containing 18 questions was developed. Conclusion: 3D printed models have the potential to be helpful tools in surgical patient education, and there exists a need to standardize the assessment of patient experience with these models. This survey provides a standardized, generalizable way to investigate the patient experience with personalized 3D-printed models.
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.