ArticleThe clinical teacher2022
Are 3D printed models acceptable in assessment?
Article in The clinical teacher, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 3D printing as a pedagogical tool for teaching normal human anatomy: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2023Pooled it
- Lecture, model, or both? Optimizing fracture education with 3D printing: a longitudinal interventional study.3D printing in medicine · 2026Article
- Use of 3D printed low-cost models for veterinary clinical skills training.Open veterinary journal · 2025Article
- The Application of 3D Anatomy for Teaching Veterinary Clinical Neurology.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Are 3D printed models acceptable in assessment?The clinical teacher · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) printed models are increasingly used in undergraduate anatomy teaching. However, their role and value in anatomy assessment remains under consideration. The aim of this study was to evaluate student and educator perspectives on acceptability of using novel 3D printed heart models for assessment.
methodsWe used printed 3D models of the heart for first-year medical students, in small group teaching, formative assessment and revision at home. We adopted a mixed methods approach involving questionnaires, then focus groups to collect student and educator views. We used QSR Nvivo to manage thematic analysis of responses, carried out by student and educators, respectively.
findingsOverall, students 89% (n = 75/84) and educators 91% (n = 10/11) found the assessment acceptable. Thematic analysis of focus groups (n = 4 students, n = 5 educators) identified five key perceptions shared across student and educator groups: 3D models are the future, realism is valued, models appear feasible, consistent and provide a potential for a range of applications in assessment. DISCUSSION: There was agreement between educators and students that the use of 3D heart models was acceptable. Key recognised benefits include accessibility and consistency across settings, made more relevant in the current COVID-19 pandemic. We recommend integration of 3D models into teaching and assessment for educational alignment and careful selection of anatomy to model. Further research is required to explore the use of models in summative assessments.
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.