ArticleScientific reports2025
Application of a 3D printed wig protection device after decompressive craniectomy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07122752 (Feasibility, Safety and Patient Reported Outcomes of 3D-Printed Externally-applied Cranial Orthosis), which is not on this 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.
Feasibility, Safety and Patient Reported Outcomes of 3D-Printed Externally-applied Cranial Orthosis (PEACO) After Decompression Craniectomy in Clinical Settings: A Retrospective Comparison Study of Monitored Versus Unmonitored Protocols
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A personalized 3D printed cranial shield using mirror-image modeling: design and clinical assessment.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wig protectors produced via 3D printing were used in skull protection protocols following decompressive craniotomy (DC) surgery. This study is a single-center, prospective trial involving 25 patients who underwent DC. Patients admitted between February 1, 2023, and June 30, 2023, were assigned to the control group (receiving standard care), while those admitted between July 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023, comprised the experimental group (receiving 3D-printed wig protection). The study evaluated participants based on various metrics, including reinjury at the site of the skull defect, daily wear duration, skin indentation, pain levels, itching, discomfort, patient-reported aesthetics, and the Quality of Life (QLQ-C30). They completed both wear assessments and follow-up evaluations at 1, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Post-intervention, the experimental group exhibited a lower incidence of secondary injuries compared to the control group (0 vs. 3, P = 0.206). At the three-month follow-up, the experimental group demonstrated better outcomes in self-assessed aesthetics (P = 0.025) and QLQ-C30 scores (P = 0.041). The 3D-printed wig protector had a weight of 132.3 ± 11.98 g (ranging from 111 to 146 g), and none of the patients in the experimental group reported pain, pressure, itching, or discomfort during the first 30-min wear period. On average, patients wore the device for 2.01 ± 0.22 h in week 1, 5.71 ± 0.40 h in week 4, 6.04 ± 0.10 h in week 8, and 5.93 ± 0.47 h in week 12. While some patients reported minor skin indentation, pain, itching, or a sensation of stuffiness, no serious adverse events were observed.
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.