Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38481863›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2024

Clay modeling as a learning tool for medical trainees in urology: a narrative review and pilot study.

Shannon J Leung, Minna Blottner, Sydney Wheeler, Rebecca S Zee, J Tyler Roseman, Adam P Klausner, Sarah C Krzastek

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 58% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shannon J LeungSchool of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Minna BlottnerSchool of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Sydney WheelerSchool of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Rebecca S ZeeDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
J Tyler RosemanDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Adam P KlausnerDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Sarah C KrzastekDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Virginia Commonwealth University · USHunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) necessitated a transition to virtual education which limits hands-on opportunities and student engagement. To adapt, a pilot study investigating clay modeling as an alternative educational tool for medical students was incorporated in a virtual and in-person sub-internship for prospective urology applicants. We aim to review the literature supporting the use of clay modeling in medical education as well as describe our experience with the activity as a way to engage trainees and evaluate early surgical skills. Methods: The current literature on clay modeling in medical and early surgical education was reviewed using multiple search queries in PubMed. A total of thirteen publications were identified and analyzed, with zero articles specifically discussing urological anatomy or surgery. The pilot study was conducted through the traditional in-person sub-internship as well as through a novel virtual sub-internship at a single academic U.S. Urology residency program. Students were instructed to create a three-dimensional model of a genitourinary organ using modeling clay. Anonymized surveys were collected. Responses of virtual and in-person students were compared. Key Content and Findings: Clay modeling has been shown in the literature to be beneficial in medical and early surgical education through the use of active learning. Twenty-five total virtual (N=6) and in-person (N=19) students participated in the clay modeling activity. Survey ratings were mixed, with 100% positive responses amongst the virtual group in the areas of "relevance" and "creatively challenging" compared to the in-person cohort, 31.6% of whom responded positively to "relevance" and 47.4% for "creatively challenging" respectively. Overall, students responded positively for the exercise being "creatively challenging" (n=15, 60%) and "enjoyable" (n=16, 64%). Positive results echoed the student perspectives described in the current literature on clay modeling. Conclusions: Clay modeling has previously been used in the in-person classroom setting as a learning supplement or replacement for dissection classes but has not been previously described for use in the virtual learning environment or within the field of Urology. With ongoing need to develop novel teaching modalities, clay modeling may be a unique tool to enhance learning, and evaluate technical skill, and boost engagement for medical trainees.

Indexed as

Clay modelcoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)surgical educationurologyvirtual learning

Identifiers

PMID38481863
PMCPMC10932643
OpenAlexW4391585781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.