ArticleMedical science educator2025
Comparing the Effectiveness of Digital 3D PDF vs. 3D-Printed Heart Models as Learning Aids for Echocardiography in Medical Students.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reconciling echocardiographic images with heart anatomy in sonographic cross-sections is challenging. We compared use of 3D-printed heart models to 3D Portable Document Format (PDFs) heart models as learning aids in understanding echocardiography. Methods: 3D heart models were printed in five echocardiographic cross-sections: parasternal long axis, parasternal base short axis, parasternal ventricular short axis, apical four-chamber, and bicaval. Models were also reproduced as 3D PDFs on handheld tablets. Medical students were assigned to use 3D PDFs (control) or 3D-printed models (experimental) while performing transthoracic echocardiograms on standardized patients. Students were given immediate (after one session) and delayed (after four sessions in two months) post-tests measuring satisfaction, learning quality, and echocardiographic knowledge. Analysis was conducted using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing with a p-value threshold of 0.05, followed by post-hoc testing with adjustment for multiple comparisons when indicated. Results: One-hundred fifty students were surveyed. The experimental group reported greater satisfaction and learning quality relative to the control for the immediate and delayed periods ( Conclusion: 3D PDF and 3D-printed heart models achieve similar efficacy in supplementing student learning of echocardiography. However, students may prefer 3D-printed heart models. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-025-02392-x.
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.