Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37400919›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2023

IMproving facial PRosthesis construction with contactlESs Scanning and Digital workflow (IMPRESSeD): study protocol for a feasibility crossover randomised controlled trial of digital versus conventional manufacture of facial prostheses in patients with orbital or nasal facial defects.

Rachael Y Jablonski, Trevor J Coward, Paul Bartlett, Andrew J Keeling, Chris Bojke, Sue H Pavitt, Brian R Nattress

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rachael Y JablonskiDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. rachaeljablonski@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5034-9831
Trevor J CowardAcademic Centre of Reconstructive Science, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Paul BartlettMaxillofacial Laboratory, Leeds Dental Institute, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Andrew J KeelingDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Chris BojkeAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Sue H PavittDental Translational and Clinical Research Unit, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Brian R NattressDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
University of Leeds · GBKing's College London · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Leeds Hospitals Charity ULXXO/A200515National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) NIHR300235
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFacial prostheses can have a profound impact on patients' appearance, function and quality of life. There has been increasing interest in the digital manufacturing of facial prostheses which may offer many benefits to patients and healthcare services compared with conventional manufacturing processes. Most facial prosthesis research has adopted observational study designs with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) documented. There is a clear need for a well-designed RCT to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of digitally manufactured facial prostheses versus conventionally manufactured facial prostheses. This study protocol describes the planned conduct of a feasibility RCT which aims to address this knowledge gap and determine whether it is feasible to conduct a future definitive RCT.

methodsThe IMPRESSeD study is a multi-centre, 2-arm, crossover, feasibility RCT with early health technology assessment and qualitative research. Up to 30 participants with acquired orbital or nasal defects will be recruited from the Maxillofacial Prosthetic Departments of participating NHS hospitals. All trial participants will receive 2 new facial prostheses manufactured using digital and conventional manufacturing methods. The order of receiving the facial prostheses will be allocated centrally using minimisation. The 2 prostheses will be made in tandem and marked with a colour label to mask the manufacturing method to the participants. Participants will be reviewed 4 weeks following the delivery of the first prosthesis and 4 weeks following the delivery of the second prosthesis. Primary feasibility outcomes include eligibility, recruitment, conversion, and attrition rates. Data will also be collected on patient preference, quality of life and resource use from the healthcare perspective. A qualitative sub-study will evaluate patients' perception, lived experience and preference of the different manufacturing methods. DISCUSSION: There is uncertainty regarding the best method of manufacturing facial prostheses in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability. There is a need for a well-designed RCT to compare digital and conventional manufacturing of facial prostheses to better inform clinical practice. The feasibility study will evaluate key parameters needed to design a definitive trial and will incorporate early health technology assessment and a qualitative sub-study to identify the potential benefits of further research.

trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN10516986). Prospectively registered on 08 June 2021,  https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10516986 .

Indexed as

Computer-aided designCross-over studiesFeasibility studiesHead and neck neoplasmsMaxillofacial prosthesisQualitative researchRandomised controlled trialTechnology assessment, BiomedicalThree-dimension printing

Identifiers

PMID37400919
PMCPMC10316589
OpenAlexW4382940932

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.