ArticleBMC medical education2024
Feasibility and impact of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology in simulated teaching of congenital malformations.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From virtual to reality: application of a novel 3D printing hollow model for early-stage lung cancer in the clinical teaching of thoracoscopic sublobar resection.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Application of a hybrid virtual-physical teaching model integrating mixed reality and 3D printing in clinical joint orthopedic education.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Pilot Evaluation of Silicone Surrogates for Oral Mucosa Simulation in Craniofacial Surgical Training.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing three-dimensional (3D) printing technology in the simulation teaching of congenital malformations.
methodsWe conducted a comparative analysis between an experimental group that received traditional teaching supplemented with 3D printing model demonstrations and hands-on model operation, and a control group that received traditional teaching methods. Various parameters, including classroom interest, classroom interaction, learning enthusiasm, disease awareness, teaching satisfaction, and independent operation confidence, were assessed, along with theoretical and practical tests.
resultsThe results showed no significant difference in theoretical test scores between the two groups (91.92 ± 15.04 vs. 89.44 ± 14.89), but the practical test revealed a significantly higher number of qualified trainees in the experimental group compared to the control group (23 vs. 8). In terms of classroom engagement, both groups exhibited similar levels of interest (8.08 ± 1.52 vs. 8.74 ± 0.984), classroom interaction (7.88 ± 1.97 vs. 8.7 ± 1.33), learning enthusiasm (8.81 ± 1.021 vs. 8.52 ± 1.189), and disease awareness (8.58 ± 0.99 vs. 8.58 ± 0.99). However, the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher teaching satisfaction (8.81 ± 1.06 vs. 9.19 ± 0.96) and greater operation confidence (7.67 ± 2.56 vs. 5.5 ± 2.79) than the control group.
conclusion3D printing technology can be effectively utilized to create surgical teaching models, enhancing the confidence of standardized training doctors and improving teaching outcomes.
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.