ArticlePEC innovation2022
Utility of 3-dimensionally printed models for parent education in pediatric plagiocephaly.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using 3D-printing technology for patient education: a review of the literature.3D printing in medicine · 2025Review
- Requirements and Value Elicitation for a High-Fidelity Pelvic Floor Simulator for Physiotherapists: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Demonstrate the benefits of using 3D printed skull models when counseling families regarding disorders of the cranial vault (namely plagiocephaly and craniosynostosis), as traditional imaging review and discussion is often insufficient. Methods: 3D printed skull models of a patient with plagiocephaly were used during clinic appointments to aid in the counseling of parents. Surveys were distributed following the appointment to evaluate the utility of these models during the discussion. Results: Fifty surveys were distributed (with a 98% response rate). 3D models were both empirically and anecdotally helpful for parents in understanding their child's diagnosis. Conclusion: Advances in 3D printing technology and software have made producing models more accessible. Incorporating physical, disorder-specific models into our discussions has led to improvements in our ability to communicate with our patients and their families. Innovation: Disorders of the cranial can be challenging to describe to the parents and guardians of affected children; using 3D printed models is a useful adjunct in patient-centered discussions. The subject response to the use of these emerging technologies in this setting suggests a major role for 3D models in patient education and counseling for cranial vault disorders.
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.