Observational studyBMC health services research2024
First experiences of a hospital-based 3D printing facility - an analytical observational study.
Observational study in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Early osseointegration of two in-house 3D-printed porous titanium implant designs: anFrontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- 3D-Printed Cutting Guide in Oncological Pelvic Surgery: A Case Report and Proof of Concept Validation of Cutting Guide Accuracy.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
- Qualitative exploration of 3D printing in Swedish healthcare: perceived effects and barriers.BMC health services research · 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
purposeTo identify the clinical impact and potential benefits of in-house 3D-printed objects through a questionnaire, focusing on three principal areas: patient education; interdisciplinary cooperation; preoperative planning and perioperative execution. MATERIALS AND
methodsQuestionnaires were sent from January 2021 to August 2022. Participants were directed to rate on a scale from 1 to 10.
resultsThe response rate was 43%. The results of the rated questions are averages. 84% reported using 3D-printed objects in informing the patient about their condition/procedure. Clinician-reported improvement in patient understanding of their procedure/disease was 8.1. The importance of in-house placement was rated 9.2. 96% reported using the 3D model to confer with colleagues. Delay in treatment due to 3D printing lead-time was 1.8. The degree with which preoperative planning was altered was 6.9. The improvement in clinician perceived preoperative confidence was 8.3. The degree with which the scope of the procedure was affected, in regard to invasiveness, was 5.6, wherein a score of 5 is taken to mean unchanged. Reduction in surgical duration was rated 5.7.
conclusionClinicians report the utilization of 3D printing in surgical specialties improves procedures pre- and intraoperatively, has a potential for increasing patient engagement and insight, and in-house location of a 3D printing center results in improved interdisciplinary cooperation and allows broader access with only minimal delay in treatment due to lead-time.
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.