ArticleCureus2024
Impact of 3D-Printed Anatomical Models on Doctor-Patient Communication in Orthopedic Consultations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Imaging-based 3D-printed anatomical models for preoperative planning in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a single-center pilot study, cost analysis, and systematic review.La Radiologia medica · 2026Pooled it
- Three-Dimensional-Printed Models and Shared Decision-Making: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Orthopaedics: Cost Analysis and Emerging Applications.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Bronchovascular Modelling in Sublobar Pulmonary Resection: A Tool for Personalised Thoracic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective communication between doctors and patients is essential for treatment adherence and better clinical outcomes. Although 3D printing has advanced in medicine, its impact on doctor-patient communication still requires further investigation. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness of 3D anatomical models as a tool to facilitate communication in orthopedic consultations. This randomized clinical trial was conducted between May 2024 and September 2024, with 46 patients randomized into two groups: 21 patients received medical explanations with the aid of 3D models, and 25 without. Patients' knowledge was assessed before and after the consultation, and the quality of communication was measured using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). In the group using 3D models, 76.19% of patients reported improved knowledge of their conditions, while in the group without models, the increase was 52.00%. Additionally, 14 out of 15 CAT parameters showed statistically significant differences between the groups, with p-values ranging from 0.001 to 0.021. The use of 3D models significantly improved patients' understanding and facilitated communication with doctors, proving to be an effective tool for explaining complex medical conditions.
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.