3DPAM production costs ranged from 1.25 to 2800 USD per model, and eleven studies concluded 3D printing costs less than plastinated or commercial models¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Cost per model ranged from 1.25 USD to 2800 USD across studies that specified cost. → Brumpt Eléonore 2023 q2 i? Eleven studies concluded 3D printing costs less than plastinated or commercial models. → Brumpt Eléonore 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Brumpt Eléonore 2023¶

Brumpt Eléonore, Bertin Eugénie, Tatu Laurent, Louvrier Aurélien. (2023). 3D printing as a pedagogical tool for teaching normal human anatomy: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04744-w

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review's model-design synthesis reports that "The cost per model, when specified, ranged from 1.25 USD to 2800 USD", with the extremes a bone specimen and a high-fidelity retroperitoneal model.

"The cost per model, when specified, ranged from 1.25 USD to 2800 USD; these extremes corresponded to a bone specimen [47] and a high-fidelity retroperitoneal model [48]."

Brumpt Eléonore 2023 (2)¶

Brumpt Eléonore, Bertin Eugénie, Tatu Laurent, Louvrier Aurélien. (2023). 3D printing as a pedagogical tool for teaching normal human anatomy: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04744-w

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review's discussion reports that "Eleven studies concluded that 3D printing costs less than plastinated or commercial models", and that commercial models were considered inferior to 3DPAMs for teaching detail.

"Eleven studies concluded that 3D printing costs less than plastinated or commercial models [24, 27, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 60, 63, 80, 81, 83]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 3DPAMs were significantly more effective than plastinated prosections for learning anatomy in two reviewed studies — related
• Groups using 3DPAMs achieved significantly better test results than groups using dry bones, with one mixed result on MCQs — related
• Meta-analyses report better post-test results for 3DPAM instruction, especially for complex anatomical structures and medical students — related
• 3DPAM pedagogical effectiveness appears best for complex anatomical areas and for students early in their medical studies — related
• In seven reviewed studies 3DPAMs were not superior to other models on student knowledge tests — related
• One hour of learning with a lower-limb 3DPAM showed no significant difference from one hour of dissection on the same area — related