Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of using 3D printing to develop medical devices across all medical fields. Design Systematic review compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Data sources PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar. Methods A double-blinded review method was used to select all abstracts up to January 2017 that reported on clinical trials of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed medical device. The studies were ranked according to their level of evidence, divided into medical fields based on the International Classification of Diseases chapter divisions and categorised into whether they were used for preoperative planning, aiding surgery or therapy. The Downs and Black Quality Index critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of reporting, external validity, risk of bias, risk of confounding and power of each study. Results Of the 3084 abstracts screened, 350 studies met the inclusion criteria. Oral and maxillofacial surgery contained 58.3% of studies, and 23.7% covered the musculoskeletal system. Only 21 studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and all fitted within these two fields. The majority of RCTs were 3D-printed anatomical models for preoperative planning and guides for aiding surgery. The main benefits of these devices were decreased surgical operation times and increased surgical accuracy. Conclusions All medical fields that assessed 3D-printed devices concluded that they were clinically effective. The fields that most rigorously assessed 3D-printed devices were oral and maxillofacial surgery and the musculoskeletal system, both of which concluded that the 3D-printed devices outperformed their conventional comparators. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of 3D-printed devices remain undetermined for the majority of medical fields. 3D-printed devices can play an important role in healthcare, but more rigorous and long-term assessments are needed to determine if 3D-printed devices are clinically relevant before they become part of standard clinical practice.

Pedestrian Dead Reckoning (PDR) is the process of calculating one's current location by using the previously known position, and advancing that position over time using established or estimated speeds and trajectories (or alternatively stride lengths and directions). PDR plays an important role in modern life, including tracking locations of people and objects whenever GPS is not available. Self-contained PDR systems do not require an infrastructure, thus they can be used for rapid deployment in situations such as search and rescue, disaster relief or medical emergencies. Wearable sensors are often applied in self-contained PDR, but implementation varies in terms of the number, type and location of sensors used. Many algorithms are designed for PDR in order to reduce the error or drift of the final estimate, with various levels of success. There is a lack of comparison between these different methods and this systematic review of PDR for wearable devices provides a comprehensive overview that can inform further design optimizations. The aim of this article is to assess the quality of all available PDR literature with a focus on wearable sensors. It provides an outline of the state-of-the-art in the field by comparing the accuracy of different sensor layouts and algorithms. Further directions of research are suggested based on these results. This study also highlights the need for more standardised and robust assessment protocols to capture real-world tracking performance of PDR methods.

There has been a rising interest in wearable and implantable biomedical sensors over the last decade. However, many technologies have not been integrated into clinical care, due to a limited understanding of user-centered design issues. Little information is available about these issues and there is a need to adopt more rigorous evidence standards for design features to allow important medical sensors to progress quicker into clinical care. Current trends in patient preferences need to be incorporated at an early stage into the design process of prospective clinical sensors. The first comprehensive patient data set, discussing mobile biomedical sensor technology, is presented in this paper. The study population mainly consisted of individuals suffering from arthritis. It was found that sensor systems needed to be small, discreet, unobtrusive and preferably incorporated into everyday objects. The upper extremity was seen as the favored position on the body for placement, while invasive placement yielded high levels of acceptance. Under these conditions most users were willing to wear the body-worn sensor for more than 20 h a day. This study is a first step to generate research based user-orientated design criteria’s for biomedical sensors.

In recent years, non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) and infrared thermography (IRT) have gained prominence as convenient, non-invasive tools for human body temperature measurement. Despite their widespread adoption in a range of settings, there remain questions about their accuracy under varying conditions. This systematic review sought to critically evaluate the performance of NCITs and IRT in body temperature monitoring, synthesizing evidence from a total of 72 unique settings from 32 studies. The studies incorporated in our review ranged from climate-controlled room investigations to clinical applications. Our primary findings showed that NCITs and IRT can provide accurate and reliable body temperature measurements in specific settings and conditions. We revealed that while both NCITs and IRT displayed a consistent positive correlation with conventional, contact-based temperature measurement tools, NCITs demonstrated slightly superior accuracy over IRT. A total of 29 of 50 settings from NCIT studies and 4 of 22 settings from IRT studies achieved accuracy levels within a range of ±0.3 °C. Furthermore, we found that several factors influenced the performance of these devices. These included the measurement location, the type of sensor, the reference and tool, individual physiological attributes, and the surrounding environmental conditions. Our research underscores the critical need for further studies in this area to refine our understanding of these influential factors and to develop standardized guidelines for the use of NCITs and IRT.

The objective of this study was to investigate reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) parameters for three coil systems; hand-held circular and figure-of-eight and navigated figure-of-eight coils. Stimulus response curves, intracortical inhibition (SICI) and facilitation (ICF) were studied in the right first dorsal interosseus muscle of 10 healthy adults. Each coil system was tested twice per subject. Navigation was conducted by a custom built system. Cortical excitability showed moderate-to-good reliability for the hand-held and navigated figure-of-eight coils (Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) 0.55-0.89). The circular coil showed poor reliability for motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude at 120% resting motor threshold (RMT; MEP<;sub>;120<;/sub>;) and MEP sum (ICCs 0.09 & 0.48). Reliability for SICI was good for all coil systems when an outlier was removed (ICCs 0.87-0.93), but poor for ICF (ICCs <; 0.3). The circular coil had a higher MEP<;sub>;120<;/sub>; than the navigated figure-of-eight coil (p = 0.004). Figure-of-eight coils can be used confidently to investigate cortical excitability over time. ICF should be interpreted with caution. The navigation device frees the experimenter and enables tracking of the position of the coil and subject. The results help guide the choice of coil system for longitudinal measurements of motor cortex function.