Trial reportPediatric research2025
Evaluating 3D-printed models for congenital heart disease: impact on parental anxiety and procedural understanding.
Trial report in Pediatric research, 2025. 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.
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Orthopaedics: Cost Analysis and Emerging Applications.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Review
- Feasibility of 3D echocardiography-CT/CMR fusion to create atrioventricular valve-integrated 3D printed heart models in complex congenital heart disease: greater incremental benefit for surgeons than cardiac imagers.3D printing in medicine · 2026Article
- Use of Patient-Specific 3D Models in Paediatric Surgery: Effect on Communication and Surgical Management.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Embedding Compassion and Communication Frameworks in Pediatric Cardiology.Pediatric cardiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of the impact of 3D-printed models on parental education and anxiety in parents of children with congenital heart disease (CHD) who are undergoing interventions or surgeries.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at LMU University Hospital and the German Heart Center Munich. Parents (n = 57) of pediatric CHD patients were randomized into two groups: a control group using standardized paper-based methods and an intervention group using additional 3D-printed models. Parental anxiety was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, while procedural understanding and satisfaction with the education were evaluated using custom-developed questionnaires.
resultsBoth educational methods significantly increased procedural understanding (control 77.5% to 92.3%; 3D model: 77% to 89.4%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Significant reduction of anxiety was observed in both groups, (VAS reduction control: -0.9, p = 0.0342; 3D model: -1.1, p = 0.0116). Parents with medical background or those informed by pediatricians had lower anxiety whereas those seeking information online exhibited higher anxiety levels.
conclusionBoth educational methods significantly reduced parental anxiety and improved procedural understanding. 3D-printed models were well-received and will be integrated into routine practice to enhance education on CHD procedures and optimize physician-parent communication. IMPACT STATEMENT: Using additional 3D-printed models of congenital heart defects significantly reduces parental anxiety and increases procedural understanding of complex interventions or surgeries. Physicians are in desperate need of new visualization methods for an efficient patient education. This study underscores the need for tailored educational and psychological support for parents based on their previous experiences.
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.