ArticleBJR open2026
Fabrication of anatomical sonographic phantoms through direct 3D-printing.
Article in BJR open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Sonographic anatomy classes can be curtailed by the availability of subjects for sensitive regional scanning. These limitations can be overcome by using anatomically realistic ultrasound phantoms (USPs). Simulation-based training with USPs also allows interventional radiology (IR) trainees to safely practice complex procedures. However, commercial phantoms are not patient-specific and involve costly, lengthy production methods. We describe a simple method for producing anatomically realistic USPs from 2D grey-scale ultrasound images using rapid direct 3D-printing technology. Methods: Original sonographic images were obtained from an open-source database and by scanning student volunteers. Images were digitally modified using Inkscape, ImageJ, Blender, Meshmixer, and CHITUBOX software programs. Models were printed using resin photopolymer 3D printers. In total, 4 phantoms were made: a femoral trochlea, a pediatric appendix, an eye with retinal detachment, and a radial nerve/brachioradialis model. The ImageJ Fiji plugin function, "Block Matching Correspondences" (BMCs) was used to assess similarity between source and phantom images. Results: All phantom images displayed BMCs with the original images (14%-43% similarity). The radial nerve model displayed the highest similarity. USPs produced with a hydrophilic swellable resin could be imaged throughout their full thickness and penetrated by a needle. Conclusions: In summary, this approach can manufacture USPs from 2D ultrasound data capable of generating anatomically accurate, patient-specific sonographic images. The low cost of these models, alongside their reproducibility through rapid 3D-printing technology, makes them a highly accessible, effective tool for simulation-based IR training. Advances in knowledge: To our knowledge, this study presents the first anatomical USPs, which have been directly 3D-printed from a single 2D ultrasound image source.
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.