ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023
Meta-analyzing the efficacy of 3D printed models in anatomy education.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 3D visualization technology for Learning human anatomy among medical students and residents: a meta- and regression analysis.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- 3D printing as a pedagogical tool for teaching normal human anatomy: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2023Pooled it
- A new classmate in anatomy education: 3D anatomical modeling medical students' engagement on learning through self-prepared anatomical models.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Review
- Exploring the Impact of Varied Design Approaches and Materials in Respiratory Therapy Education.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Are 3D-printed anatomical models of the ear effective for teaching anatomy? A comparative pilot study versus cadaveric models.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2024Article
- Advanced Strategies for the Fabrication of Multi-Material Anatomical Models of Complex Pediatric Oncologic Cases.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional printing models (3DPs) have been widely used in medical anatomy training. However, the 3DPs evaluation results differ depending on such factors as the training objects, experimental design, organ parts, and test content. Thus, this systematic evaluation was carried out to better understand the role of 3DPs in different populations and different experimental designs. Controlled (CON) studies of 3DPs were retrieved from PubMed and Web of Science databases, where the participants were medical students or residents. The teaching content is the anatomical knowledge of human organs. One evaluation indicator is the mastery of anatomical knowledge after training, and the other is the satisfaction of participants with 3DPs. On the whole, the performance of the 3DPs group was higher than that of the CON group; however, there was no statistical difference in the resident subgroup, and there was no statistical difference for 3DPs vs. 3D visual imaging (3DI). In terms of satisfaction rate, the summary data showed that the difference between the 3DPs group (83.6%) vs. the CON group (69.6%) (binary variable) was not statistically significant, with
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.