Observational studyHand (New York, N.Y.)2026
Utility of 3-Dimensional Printed Models for Distal Radius Fracture Classification.
Observational study in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis comparative observational study evaluated the reliability of 3-dimensional (3D) models versus radiograph imaging for distal radius fracture classification by measuring inter- and intraobserver agreement.
methodsTwelve distal radius fractures were selected from our institution and 3D printed models were created using computed tomography (CT) data imaging. Each fracture model was printed in both resin and filament material. 3D models and radiograph images were randomized, and participants independently classified each based on the AO classification for distal radius fractures. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was measured by kappa coefficient and reliability was compared between radiograph and 3D model for each fracture using 95% confidence intervals. Results were analyzed by 3-level classification AO types (A, B, C) and 9-level classification using AO types and groups (A1-A3, B1-B3, C1-C3).
resultsAmong 24 participants, 3D printed models showed improved inter-observer agreement when compared with radiographs using the 3-level AO classification system, although not statistically significant. Significant improvement in agreement was observed using the 3-level AO classification amongst the orthopedic providers in this study. Agreement in all above-mentioned groups improved from "none/slight" with radiograph images to "fair" or "moderate" agreement when using the 3D models.
conclusions3D-printing enhanced inter- and intrasurgeon reliability for distal radius fracture classification when compared with radiograph imaging alone. However, overall agreement with either method of classification was low. Statistical significance was achieved only with subgroup analysis. These findings suggest that while 3D-printed models offer some value, their impact on clinical practice may be limited in their current form.
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.