Review3D printing in medicine2025
Using 3D-printing technology for patient education: a review of the literature.
Review in 3D printing in medicine, 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.
- Three-Dimensional Bronchovascular Modelling in Sublobar Pulmonary Resection: A Tool for Personalised Thoracic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background3D printing' is increasingly present in the health sector. The introduction of 3D printed models into the patient care pathway can be seen as a new patient education tool based on the principle of 'see to understand'. The aim of this review is to describe studies investigating the contribution of printed models to patient care and education, and to examine their limitations. A comprehensive PubMed database search was conducted to identify relevant studies. No date, author or language restrictions were imposed. This review focused on studying the impact of a 3D organ model on 5 categories: understanding of the disease and/or the anatomy of the organ, understanding of the surgical plan and its implications, doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction and patient anxiety. The review selected 45 articles published between 2015 and 2024. Of these, 41 articles investigated the effect of using a 3D model on understanding of the disease and/or the organ concerned. 33 articles evaluated the understanding of treatment, and the risks associated. 13 articles assessed the effect of the model on doctor-patient communication. Patient satisfaction was measured in 22 articles, and 9 articles measured patient anxiety.
conclusionMost of the articles analyzed-27 out of 45-demonstrate a significant enhancement in at least one category of patient education, underscoring the promising potential of 3D technology in this field. However, several methodological limitations temper these promising findings, highlighting the need for further research. Future studies should address these limitations and explore new methodologies to fully exploit 3D's potential.
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.