Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36276759›Full record

ReviewMedical science educator2022

Using 3D Printing to Improve Student Education of Complex Anatomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

David Salazar, Michael Thompson, Adam Rosen, Jorge Zuniga

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical science educator, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

David SalazarDepartment of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6160 University Dr S, Omaha, NE 68182 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2888-1658
Michael ThompsonDepartment of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6160 University Dr S, Omaha, NE 68182 USA.
Adam RosenSchool of Health and Kinesiology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6160 University Dr S, Omaha, NE 68182 USA.
Jorge ZunigaDepartment of Biomechanics, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6160 University Dr S, Omaha, NE 68182 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Additive manufacturing has played an increasingly important role in the field of health care. One of the most recent applications has been the development of 3D printed anatomical models specifically to improve student education. The purpose of this review was to assess the potential for 3D printed models to improve understanding of complex anatomy in undergraduate and medical/professional students. Methods: A systematic review was performed to investigate the different implementations of 3D printed anatomical models in educational curricula. In addition, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess the differences in comprehension between students who received 3D printed models as part of their instruction and those taught with traditional methods. Results: Of the 10 groups included in the meta-analysis, students whose educational experience included a 3D printed model scored roughly 11% better on objective assessments compared to students who did not use such models (Hedge's Conclusion: Based on these findings, the use of 3D printed anatomical models as a method of education is likely to improve students' understanding of complex anatomical structures.

Indexed as

3D printingAnatomic modelEducationStudent

Identifiers

PMID36276759
PMCPMC9583986

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.