ReviewHealth science reports2026
Clinical Efficacy and Accuracy of 3D-Printed Medical Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical and experimental utility of three-dimensional (3D) printing in medical and dental applications, with a focus on its impact on surgical precision, procedural efficiency, and patient-centered results. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Database searches identified 481 records, of which 15 studies were included in the review; eight contributed to one or more meta-analyses. Quantitative analysis assessed operative time and intraoperative blood loss using mean differences with random-effects models. Study quality was evaluated using NOS, Cochrane RoB 2, and ROBINS-I tools. Results: Fifteen studies were included; eight contributed to at least one meta-analysis. At the study level, 5 of 7 comparative studies (71.4%) favored 3D printing for accuracy, fit, alignment, or planning; all 10 studies reporting procedural or operative time favored it; and 4 of 7 (57.1%) reported better patient-centered or functional outcomes. Random-effects models showed no statistically significant reduction in operative time (MD, -24.88 min; 95% CI, -62.45 to 12.70; Conclusions: Available evidence suggests that 3D printing may improve procedural precision, patient-specific planning, and selected clinical outcomes; however, extreme heterogeneity and limited outcome-specific evidence preclude broad generalization.
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.