3DPAMs were significantly more effective than plastinated prosections for learning anatomy in two reviewed studies¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Two studies found 3DPAMs significantly more effective than plastinated prosections on learning tests. → Brumpt Eléonore 2023

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 reports, citing Lim et al. and Mogali et al., that "3DPAMs were significantly more effective than plastinated prosections based on learning tests"; the underlying studies' designs are not detailed here.

"Two studies found that 3DPAMs were significantly more effective than plastinated prosections based on learning tests [16, 27]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

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