Article3D printing in medicine2025
Enhancing orthopedic education in China with the BOPPPS teaching model and 3D printing technology: a comparative study.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Promoting the Dissemination of 3D Printing Technology in Reconstructing Critical-Sized Defects of Long Bone and Vertebral Body Through a "Six-in-One" Targeted Teaching Method.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn medical education, the BOPPPS (Bridge-In, Objective, Preassessment, Participatory Learning, Post assessment, Summary) teaching model has gained traction for fostering student-centered learning, yet its efficacy in orthopedic education, particularly when integrated with 3D printing technology, remains understudied. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of combining the BOPPPS model with 3D printing on learning outcomes, student satisfaction, and clinical skill development in mainland China’s orthopedic curriculum.
methodsA single-center, prospective observational study was conducted with 68 fifth-year clinical medical students at Tongji Medical College, randomized into a control group (n = 34, traditional lecture-based teaching) and an intervention group (n = 34, BOPPPS model + 3D printing). The intervention incorporated patient-specific 3D-printed pelvic fracture models into BOPPPS-structured sessions, focusing on participatory learning activities like fracture classification and surgical planning. Primary outcomes included theoretical knowledge (100-point exam), clinical practice ability (100-point skills assessment), self-ability evaluation (15-item questionnaire), student satisfaction (15-item Likert-scale survey), and learning quality indicators (input, process, outcome evaluations).
resultsThe intervention group outperformed the control group in all primary outcomes. Theoretical knowledge scores were significantly higher in the intervention group (83.28 ± 10.74 vs. 68.94 ± 11.08, p < 0.001), as were clinical practice ability scores (82.64 ± 8.67 vs. 69.36 ± 10.93, p = 0.008). Self-ability evaluations showed a 18-percentage-point increase in “excellent” ratings (41.18% vs. 23.53%, p = 0.008), and teaching satisfaction was notably higher (97.06% vs. 76.47%, p = 0.012). Learning quality indicators—input (26.24 ± 3.58 vs. 12.46 ± 2.11), process (25.88 ± 3.37 vs. 12.34 ± 2.53), and outcome (25.34 ± 3.32 vs. 13.10 ± 2.27) all favored the intervention group (p < 0.001 for all).
conclusionIntegrating the BOPPPS teaching model with 3D printing technology enhances theoretical knowledge, clinical skills, self-perceived competence, and student satisfaction in orthopedic education. This hybrid approach addresses the spatial and practical challenges of orthopedic training, offering a scalable, effective framework for modern medical curricula.
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.