ArticlePolymers2024
A Critical Systematic Scoping Review on the Applications of Additive Manufacturing (AM) in the Marine Industry.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Ultrasonic-driven grain uniformity of commercially pure nickel in continuous heat input directed energy deposition.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Additive manufacturing (AM), which has also become known as 3D printing, is rapidly expanding its areas of use in the marine industry. This study undertakes a historical development of AM in the marine industry. The study also criticises these developments to date and the future technological applications they will lead to, while considering the benefits for the industry and its segments. (2) Methods: This review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was registered in the Open Science Framework. The personalized search strategy was applied to Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The core emphasis was placed on two eligibility criteria throughout the evaluation process. Firstly, Criteria 1 sought to determine the paper's relevance to AM. Secondly, Criteria 2 aimed to assess whether the paper delves into the implementation of AM or provides valuable insights into its utilisation within the marine industry. The risk of bias was analysed using a checklist of important parameters to be considered. (3) Results: In recent years, there has been a growing trend in studies related to the application of AM in the marine industry. While AM is widespread in industries such as automotive, aviation, and healthcare, it is relatively new for the marine industry. Almost only 5% of publications related to AM are related to the marine industry. There is a need for extensive research in many areas. It has been observed that classification societies and approval institutions, which largely drive the marine industry, have not yet taken AM into consideration sufficiently. (4) Conclusions: The studies show that AM is very promising for the marine industry. However, there are new studies at the experimental and theoretical level that need to be carried out to determine the right materials and AM methods to establish the quality control methodology and the necessary classification rules. This review also emphazises AM's pivotal role in reshaping the marine industry, addressing the potential environmental and occupational safety effects of AM.
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.