Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36773171›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2023

Comparative effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) vs 3D printed models of congenital heart disease in resident and nurse practitioner educational experience.

Jonathan Awori, Seth D Friedman, Christopher Howard, Richard Kronmal, Sujatha Buddhe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Virtual Reality to Enhance Understanding of Congenital Heart Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Extended reality in cardiovascular care: a systematic review.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors.

Jonathan AworiDivision of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA. Jonathan.awori@gmail.com.
Seth D FriedmanDivision of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
Christopher HowardDivision of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
Richard KronmalDivision of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sujatha BuddheDivision of Pediatric Cardiology and Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical trainees frequently note that cardiac anatomy is difficult to conceive within a two dimensional framework. The specific anatomic defects and the subsequent pathophysiology in flow dynamics may become more apparent when framed in three dimensional models. Given the evidence of improved comprehension using such modeling, this study aimed to contribute further to that understanding by comparing Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP) in medical education.

objectivesWe sought to systematically compare the perceived subjective effectiveness of Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP) in the educational experience of residents and nurse practitioners.

methodsTrainees and practitioners underwent individual 15-minute teaching sessions in which features of a developmentally typical heart as well as a congenitally diseased heart were demonstrated using both Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printed models (3DP). Participants then briefly explored each modality before filling out a short survey in which they identified which model (3DP or VR) they felt was more effective in enhancing their understanding of cardiac anatomy and associated pathophysiology. The survey included a binary summative assessment and a series of Likert scale questions addressing usefulness of each model type and degree of comfort with each modality.

resultsTwenty-seven pediatric residents and 3 nurse practitioners explored models of a developmentally typical heart and tetralogy of Fallot pathology. Most participants had minimal prior exposure to VR (1.1 ± 0.4) or 3D printed models (2.1 ± 1.5). Participants endorsed a greater degree of understanding with VR models (8.5 ± 1) compared with 3D Printed models (6.3 ± 1.8) or traditional models of instruction (5.5 ± 1.5) p < 0.001. Most participants felt comfortable with modern technology (7.6 ± 2.1). 87% of participants preferred VR over 3DP.

conclusionsOur study shows that, overall, VR was preferred over 3DP models by pediatric residents and nurse practitioners for understanding cardiac anatomy and pathophysiology.

Indexed as

3D printed modelsCongenital heart diseaseEducationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID36773171
PMCPMC9918815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.