SynthesisBMC medical education2025
The role of three-dimensional printing models in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC medical 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.
- Evaluating the educational impact of tomography-based high-resolution 3D-printed distal radius fracture models.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- 3D-Printed Models as Catalysts for Neuroanatomy Learning: An Immersive Educational Experience for Medical Students.Cureus · 2026Article
- 3D-Printing in Neurosurgical Training: Hands-On Practice, Patient-Specific Planning and Simulation.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2026Review
- A Systematic Review of Three-Dimensional Printing in Medical Education: Educational Impact and Methodological Quality.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
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
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the role of three-dimensional printing models (3DPMs) in the medical education for undergrade students.
methodA comprehensive search was performed across three online databases including Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of SCI, and Scopus spanning from their inception to October 30, 2024. Studies that satisfied the predefined inclusion criteria were incorporated into the analysis. Data analysis was executed utilizing RevMan 5.4.1. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on various models, and overall effects were estimated using either the fixed effects model or the random effects model. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.
resultsA total of 33 studies were included in this study, involving 2716 medical undergraduates. The findings indicate that 3DPMs demonstrated significant advantages over the control group in theory test of the skeletal system with a moderate effect size (N = 646, P < 0.00001, I
conclusion3DPMs serve as a valuable adjunct to traditional teaching methodologies and have the potential to enhance both the theoretical understanding and practical laboratory skills of medical students. Nevertheless, caution must be exercised in interpreting the current findings due to variations in model types, low quality of included studies, and the limited number of studies with small sample sizes.
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.