In seven reviewed studies 3DPAMs were not superior to other models on student knowledge tests¶

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? Seven studies found 3DPAMs not superior to other models on the knowledge tests given to students. → 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's synthesis of its included comparisons states that "In seven studies, 3DPAMs were not superior to other models based on the knowledge tests given to students"; no effect sizes are printed.

"In seven studies, 3DPAMs were not superior to other models based on the knowledge tests given to students [32, 66, 69, 77, 78, 84]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 3DPAM pedagogical effectiveness appears best for complex anatomical areas and for students early in their medical studies — reports the opposite
• 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
• 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 — reports the opposite
• Meta-analyses report better post-test results for 3DPAM instruction, especially for complex anatomical structures and medical students — reports the opposite
• One hour of learning with a lower-limb 3DPAM showed no significant difference from one hour of dissection on the same area — related