Meta-analyses report better post-test results for 3DPAM instruction, especially for complex anatomical structures and medical students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Ye and colleagues' meta-analysis found better post-test results for students instructed with 3DPAMs than with 2D or cadaver instruction. → Brumpt Eléonore 2023 q3 i? Ye's meta-analysis found a significant difference favouring 3DPAMs for medical students but not for residents. → Brumpt Eléonore 2023 (2) q3 i? Salazar and colleagues' meta-analysis concluded 3DPAMs specifically improve understanding of complex anatomical structures. → Brumpt Eléonore 2023 (3)

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

q3 · i? · review · r2

The review attributes to Ye et al.'s meta-analysis that "post-test results of students who received instruction incorporating 3DPAMs were better than those who received instruction in 2D or on a cadaver"; it notes Ye did not differentiate models by complexity.

"In their first meta-analysis, Ye and colleagues affirm that the post-test results of students who received instruction incorporating 3DPAMs were better than those who received instruction in 2D or on a cadaver [10]."

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

q3 · i? · review · r2

The review reports Ye's meta-analysis of 27 articles found "a significant difference in test results in favour of 3DPAMs versus conventional models for medical students but not for residents"; no effect size is printed.

"Of the 27 articles included in their study, there was a significant difference in test results in favour of 3DPAMs versus conventional models for medical students but not for residents."

Brumpt Eléonore 2023 (3)¶

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

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

The review attributes to Salazar et al.'s meta-analysis the conclusion that "the use of 3DPAMs specifically improves the understanding of complex anatomical structures"; no effect size is printed.

"In their meta-analysis, Salazar and colleagues conclude that the use of 3DPAMs specifically improves the understanding of complex anatomical structures [17]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Groups using 3DPAMs achieved significantly better test results than groups using dry bones, with one mixed result on MCQs — related
• 3DPAM pedagogical effectiveness appears best for complex anatomical areas and for students early in their medical studies — 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
• 3DPAMs were significantly more effective than plastinated prosections for learning anatomy in two reviewed studies — related
• In seven reviewed studies 3DPAMs were not superior to other models on student knowledge tests — 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Residents training on placenta models performed better than residents training on cadavers or only having surgical videos available — related