ArticleClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2026
Visualizing Anatomy: Comparing the Pedagogical Impact of Chalkboard Teaching and 3D Models.
Article in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2026. 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.
- A comparative study of cerebral anatomy teaching based on 3D body mobile application versus traditional teaching.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effective anatomy education is critical for preparing medical students for clinical tasks such as surgical planning and radiological interpretation. Traditional chalkboard teaching and modern 3D printed models offer distinct approaches, yet their comparative pedagogical impact remains underexplored. This study evaluates chalkboard, 3D printed model, and hybrid teaching methods to optimize anatomy learning for clinical applications like coronary artery mapping and neurosurgery planning. A quasi-experimental study involved 120 undergraduate medical students randomly assigned to three groups (n = 40 each) for a 15-week intervention: chalkboard (lectures with 2D diagrams), 3D printed models (hands-on learning with patient-specific models, e.g., 3D printed heart for angioplasty), and hybrid (integrating both, model-first sequence). Outcomes were assessed via a 20-item anatomy quiz (skeletal, cardiovascular, neuroanatomy, muscular domains), a 30-item pre- and post-activity questionnaire (5-point Likert scale, knowledge, engagement, clarity), qualitative interviews (n = 28, hybrid group), and the Pedagogical Visualization Index (PVI). Data were analyzed using ANOVA, paired t-tests, and thematic analysis. The hybrid group outperforms others, with superior knowledge gain (81.8%, p < 0.001), engagement (4.4 ± 0.4), clarity (4.6 ± 0.3), and PVI (0.830) compared to 3D models (PVI: 0.720) and chalkboard (PVI: 0.543), excelling in cardiovascular (84%, e.g., coronary artery mapping) and neuroanatomy (85%, e.g., cranial nerve localization). Model-first sequencing enhances outcomes (PVI: 0.86, p = 0.03). Qualitative themes (78%) emphasize visualization for clinical reasoning (e.g., femoral artery mapping for vascular surgery). Additionally, the hybrid method demonstrates versatility across specialties, with students achieving high clarity (4.7 ± 0.2) in neurosurgery (e.g., optic nerve tracing for aneurysm clipping), precision (88%) in radiology (e.g., lung segmentation for pulmonary embolism), and engagement (4.6 ± 0.2) in orthopedics (e.g., ACL reconstruction), supported by tactile feedback from 3D models like the knee and congenital heart models for pediatric surgery (clarity 4.9 ± 0.1). The hybrid method, leveraging 3D printed models, optimizes anatomy learning for clinical tasks, supporting adoption in resource-limited curricula. Future research should validate findings with larger cohorts and objective clinical assessments.
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.