ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Three-dimensional imaging of the forearm and hand: A comparison between two 3D imaging systems.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The conventional treatment for distal radius fractures typically involves immobilization of the injured extremity using a conventional forearm cast. These casts do cause all sorts of discomfort during wear and impose life-style restrictions on the wearer. Personalized 3D printed splints, designed using three-dimensional (3D) imaging systems, might overcome these problems. To obtain a patient specific splint, commercially available 3D camera systems are utilized to capture patient extremities, generating 3D models for splint design. This study investigates the feasibility of utilizing a new camera system (SPENTYS) to capture 3D surface scans of the forearm for the design of 3D printed splints. In a prospective observational cohort study involving 17 healthy participants, we conducted repeated 3D imaging using both the new (SPENTYS) and a reference system (3dMD) to assess intersystem accuracy and repeatability. The intersystem accuracy of the SPENTYS system was determined by comparison of the 3D surface scans with the reference system (3dMD). Comparison of consecutive images acquired per device determined the repeatability. Feasibility was measured with system usability score questionnaires distributed among professionals. The mean absolute difference between the two systems was 0.44 mm (SD:0.25). The mean absolute difference of the repeatability of the reference -and the SPENTYS system was respectively 0.40 mm (SD: 0.30) and 0.53 mm (SD: 0.25). Both repeatability and intersystem differences were within the self-reported 1 mm. The workflow was considered easy and effective, emphasizing the potential of this approach within a workflow to obtain patient specific splint.
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.