Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27172803›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2016

Do 3D Printing Models Improve Anatomical Teaching About Hepatic Segments to Medical Students? A Randomized Controlled Study.

Xiangxue Kong, Lanying Nie, Huijian Zhang, Zhanglin Wang, Qiang Ye, Lei Tang, Wenhua Huang, Jianyi Li

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 3D printed skulls in court - a benefit to stakeholders?International journal of legal medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 3D Printing of Physical Organ Models: Recent Developments and Challenges.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Xiangxue KongDepartment of Anatomy, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medical Science, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lanying NieDepartment of Traumatic Orthopedics, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Huijian ZhangDepartment of Urology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhanglin WangDepartment of Anatomy, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medical Science, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Qiang YeDepartment of Radiology, The 3rd Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Lei TangDepartment of Anatomy, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medical Science, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wenhua HuangDepartment of Anatomy, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medical Science, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. hwh@fimmu.com.
Jianyi LiDepartment of Anatomy, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Biomechanics, School of Basic Medical Science, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. lijianyi@outlook.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is a difficult and frustrating task for young surgeons and medical students to understand the anatomy of hepatic segments. We tried to develop an optimal 3D printing model of hepatic segments as a teaching aid to improve the teaching of hepatic segments.

methodsA fresh human cadaveric liver without hepatic disease was CT scanned. After 3D reconstruction, three types of 3D computer models of hepatic structures were designed and 3D printed as models of hepatic segments without parenchyma (type 1) and with transparent parenchyma (type 2), and hepatic ducts with segmental partitions (type 3). These models were evaluated by six experts using a five-point Likert scale. Ninety two medical freshmen were randomized into four groups to learn hepatic segments with the aid of the three types of models and traditional anatomic atlas (TAA). Their results of two quizzes were compared to evaluate the teaching effects of the four methods.

resultsThree types of models were successful produced which displayed the structures of hepatic segments. By experts' evaluation, type 3 model was better than type 1 and 2 models in anatomical condition, type 2 and 3 models were better than type 1 model in tactility, and type 3 model was better than type 1 model in overall satisfaction (P < 0.05). The first quiz revealed that type 1 model was better than type 2 model and TAA, while type 3 model was better than type 2 and TAA in teaching effects (P < 0.05). The second quiz found that type 1 model was better than TAA, while type 3 model was better than type 2 model and TAA regarding teaching effects (P < 0.05). Only TAA group had significant declines between two quizzes (P < 0.05).

conclusionsThe model with segmental partitions proves to be optimal, because it can best improve anatomical teaching about hepatic segments.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateModels, AnatomicPrinting, Three-DimensionalHumansLiverStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID27172803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.