Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37103761›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2023

3D printing exposure and perception in radiology residency: survey results of radiology chief residents.

David Chen, Aravinda Ganapathy, Nihil Abraham, Kaitlin M Marquis, Grace L Bishop, Frank J Rybicki, Mark J Hoegger, David H Ballard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

David ChenSchool of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Aravinda GanapathySchool of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Nihil AbrahamDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of California-Riverside School of Medicine, Riverside, CA, USA.
Kaitlin M MarquisMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Grace L BishopMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. bishop.g@wustl.edu.
Frank J RybickiDepartment of Radiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Mark J HoeggerMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
David H BallardMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesThe purpose of this study is to summarize a survey of radiology chief residents focused on 3D printing in radiology. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn online survey was distributed to chief residents in North American radiology residencies by subgroups of the Association of University Radiologists. The survey included a subset of questions focused on the clinical use of 3D printing and perceptions of the role of 3D printing and radiology. Respondents were asked to define the role of 3D printing at their institution and asked about the potential role of clinical 3D printing in radiology and radiology residencies.

results152 individual responses from 90 programs were provided, with a 46% overall program response rate (n = 90/194 radiology residencies). Most programs had 3D printing at their institution (60%; n = 54/90 programs). Among the institutions that perform 3D printing, 33% (n = 18/54) have structured opportunities for resident contribution. Most residents (60%; n = 91/152 respondents) feel they would benefit from 3D printing exposure or educational material. 56% of residents (n = 84/151) believed clinical 3D printing should be centered in radiology departments. 22% of residents (n = 34/151) believed it would increase communication and improve relationships between radiology and surgery colleagues. A minority (5%; 7/151) believe 3D printing is too costly, time-consuming, or outside a radiologist's scope of practice.

conclusionsA majority of surveyed chief residents in accredited radiology residencies believe they would benefit from exposure to 3D printing in residency. 3D printing education and integration would be a valuable addition to current radiology residency program curricula.

Indexed as

3D printingRadiologyResidency

Identifiers

PMID37103761
PMCPMC10133904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.