ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
The impact of 3D printed vs. 3D virtual congenital heart models on patient and family knowledge.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. 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.
- Immersive Three-Dimensional Visualization as a Routine Tool for Complex Congenital Cardiac Surgical Planning: A Perspective.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Congenital heart defects (CHDs) often involve complex anatomical structures that can be challenging for patients and their families to understand. While physicians utilize various imaging techniques such as cardiac echocardiograms, CT scans, and MRIs to comprehend these complexities, the information is typically conveyed to patients and families through two-dimensional (2D) images and drawings. Traditional methods often fail to fully capture the intricate nature of CHDs. This study compared the effectiveness of 2D imaging with three-dimensional (3D) virtual and 3D printed models in enhancing the understanding of CHDs among patients and their families. Methods: Family members of patients with congenital heart disease, as well as patients aged 15 years or older, were recruited for the study. Participants were presented with an echocardiogram of their specific cardiac defect alongside an echocardiogram of a structurally normal heart for comparison. They were then randomly assigned to receive education using a 3D printed model or a 3D virtual model of their heart defect. Participants' knowledge of normal cardiac anatomy and the anatomy of their specific cardiac defect was assessed after viewing the echocardiogram (2D image) and again after reviewing the 3D models. Results: One-hundred-nine subjects participated in the study, comprising 79 family members (72.5%) and 30 patients (27.5%). Subjects showed significant improvement in their understanding of normal cardiac anatomy with both 3D printed and 3D virtual models compared to the 2D image ( Discussion: These findings suggest that incorporating 3D models into the educational process for patients with congenital heart disease can lead to improved comprehension and greater satisfaction.
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.