ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
Comparing assisting technologies for proficiency in cardiac morphology: 3D printing and mixed reality versus CT slice images for morphological understanding of congenital heart defects by medical students.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing anatomical education: comparative effectiveness of mixed reality and 3D printing technologies.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Expanding the use of 3D printing in congenital heart surgery.Translational pediatrics · 2025Review
- Comparing assisting technologies for proficiency in cardiac morphology: 3D printing and mixed reality versus CT slice images for morphological understanding of congenital heart defects by medical students.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
- 3D printing in medicine: bridging imaging, education, and practice.Archives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Learning cardiac morphology largely involves spatial abilities and studies indicate benefits from innovative 3D visualization technologies that speed up and increase the learning output. Studies comparing these teaching tools and their educational output are rare and few studies include complex congenital heart defects. This study compared the effects of 3D prints, mixed reality (MR) viewing of 3D meshes and standard cardiac CT slice images on medical students' understanding of complex congenital heart defect morphology, measuring both objective level of understanding and subjective educational experience. The objective of this study was to compare morphological understanding and user experiences of 3D printed models, MR 3D visualization and axial 2D CT slices, in medical students examining morphological details in complex congenital heart defects. Medical students in the median 4th year of study (range 2nd to 6th) examined three of five different complex congenital heart defects by three different modalities: 3D printed model, MR viewed 3D mesh, and cardiac CT slices, answering a questionnaire on morphology and user experience. Time to complete task, diagnostic accuracy, and user experience data were collected and compared on group level. Task times were similar for all modalities. The percentage of correct answers was higher with MR visualization, which was also the preferred modality overall. Medical students both prefer and better understand the morphology of complex congenital heart disease with 3D models viewed using MR, without spending more time than with 3D prints or 2D CT images.
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.