SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
The current state of 3D-printed orthoses clinical outcomes: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical and functional outcomes of upper extremity 3D-printed immobilization devices compared to traditional methods: a systematic review with limited meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Direct 3D Scans and Plaster Casts in Digital Ankle-Foot Orthosis Workflows.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of Age on Success of 3D-Printed Cranial Remolding Orthoses for Deformational Head Shapes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- In silico workflow for validation of patient-specific 3D-printed casts in forearm fracture immobilization.Frontiers in surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction3D-printing is an emerging technology that is used in the manufacturing of orthotic devices. 3D-printing has many advantages such as improved fit, comfort, effectiveness, and patient satisfaction. While some challenges like durability and material selection remain, the aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the clinical outcomes of 3D-printed orthoses.
methodsA search was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines across six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Sage). Studies on 3D-printed orthoses in human rehabilitation that focused on the clinical outcomes of the device were included. While studies lacking clinical data, 3D-printing details, or focusing on traditional manufacturing methods were excluded. Finally, the risk of bias was assessed using the modified Downs & Black Checklist.
resultsA total of 1279 studies were identified, with 62 meeting the inclusion criteria. The included studies assessed different 3D-printed orthotic types, including insoles, ankle foot orthoses (AFOs), spinal orthoses, upper-limb orthoses, and helmets. The main clinical outcomes that were analyzed are gait parameters, functional performance, radiographic measurements, comfort, fit, and effectiveness. Studies on 3D-printed insoles demonstrated effective plantar pressure redistribution, and increased comfort. While studies on 3D-printed AFOs showed improvements in gait symmetry and mobility. 3D-printed spinal orthotics showed reductions in Cobb angles and enhanced postural stability in scoliotic patients. While 3D-printed upper-limb orthoses found improved grip strength, spasticity management, and user satisfaction. Finally, studies on 3D-printed helmets for cranial deformities demonstrated improved fit and reduced treatment duration.
conclusion3D-printed orthoses can enhance gait parameters, functional performance, comfort, fit, and effectiveness, compared to conventional methods. However, limitations such as small sample sizes, lack of standardized assessment methods, and durability concerns must be addressed through further research.
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.