ArticleProsthetics and orthotics international2024
A scoping review of digital fabrication techniques applied to prosthetics & orthotics: Part 2 of 2-orthotics.
Article in Prosthetics and orthotics international, 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.
- Bio-Inspired 3D-Printed Polymeric Sheets for Orthoses: Predictive Modeling of Mechanical Integrity and Moisture Absorption.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTraditionally, orthosis manufacturing is time and labor-intensive. Digitalization of some of the fabrication process is already ubiquitous, yet extension across device types could reduce the burden of manual labor and advance automation to help unblock access to assistive technologies globally. It seems, however, that appropriately strong evidence is holding this back. This review looks to thoroughly examine the current state of evidence to make this clear.
objectivesTo identify gaps in the literature that create barriers to decision-making on either appropriate uptake by clinical teams or setting research directions, by identifying what forms of evidence the current research literature provides to the orthotics community. STUDY
designScoping literature review.
methodsA comprehensive search was completed in the following databases: AMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health Archive, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ACM, IEEE, and Engineering Village, resulting in 3487 articles to be screened.
resultsAfter screening, 121 lower limb orthosis, 104 upper limb orthosis, and 30 spinal orthosis articles were included in this review. For some areas such as CAD/CAM-produced insoles and spinal orthoses, the evidence base is strong. For most additive manufacture articles, long-term, larger-scale studies as well as research into training requirements are lacking.
conclusionThe advantages of digital fabrication technology that could streamline orthotic device production in many cases are still blocked by a lack of strong formal evidence, ie large longitudinal studies with a range of evaluation measures. Increased collaboration between clinicians, patient/service users, academia, and industry could be a route to addressing these gaps and creating a better pathway to market for new technologies.
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.