Article3D printing in medicine2024
Evaluating the value of individualized 3D printed models for examination, diagnosis and treatment planning of cervical cancer.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 3D reconstructed models based on real cervical cancer cases for undergraduate gynecological oncology education: a pre- and post-test study.3D printing in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background3D printing holds great potential of improving examination, diagnosis and treatment planning as well as interprofessional communication in the field of gynecological oncology. In the current manuscript we evaluated five individualized, patient-specific models of cervical cancer FIGO Stage I-III, created with 3D printing, concerning their value for translational oncology.
methodsMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvis was performed on a 3.0 Tesla MRI, including a T2-weighted isotropic 3D sequence. The MRI images were segmented and transferred to virtual 3D models via a custom-built 3D-model generation pipeline and printed by material extrusion. The 3D models were evaluated by all medical specialties involved in patient care of cervical cancer, namely surgeons, radiologists, pathologists and radiation oncologists. Information was obtained from evaluated profession-specific questionnaires which were filled out after inspecting all five models. The questionnaires included multiple-select questions, questions based on Likert scales (1 = "strongly disagree " or "not at all useful " up to 5 = "strongly agree " or "extremely useful ") and dichotomous questions ("Yes" or "No").
resultsSurgeons rated the models as useful during surgery (4.0 out of 5) and for patient communication (4.7 out of 5). Furthermore, they believed that the models had the potential to revise the patients' treatment plan (3.7 out of 5). Pathologists evaluated with mean ratings of 3.0 out of 5 for the usefulness of the models in diagnostic reporting and macroscopic evaluation. Radiologist acknowledged the possibility of providing additional information compared to imaging alone (3.7 out of 5). Radiation oncologists strongly supported the concept by rating the models highly for understanding patient-specific pathological characteristics (4.3 out of 5), assisting interprofessional communication (mean 4.3 out of 5) and communication with patients (4.7 out of 5). They also found the models useful for improving radiotherapy treatment planning (4.3 out of 5).
conclusionThe study revealed that the 3D printed models were generally well-received by all medical disciplines, with radiation oncologists showing particularly strong support. Addressing the concerns and tailoring the use of 3D models to the specific needs of each medical speciality will be essential for realizing their full potential in clinical practice.
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.