ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
3D printing variation: Teaching and assessing hepatobiliary variants in human anatomy.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technological Advances in Intra-Operative Navigation: Integrating Fluorescence, Extended Reality, and Artificial Intelligence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- 3D printing variation: Teaching and assessing hepatobiliary variants in human anatomy.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Textbook anatomy depiction of the hepatobiliary tree is present in 55%-62% of the population. Misidentification of hepatobiliary variants can lead to bile duct injuries in cholecystectomies. A better understanding of variants has been cited as a key area for improvement in anatomy education. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 3D printed models with hepatobiliary variants to conventional 2D image-based teaching and assessment The study invited medical students to participate and were allocated to either a 2D image projection group or a 3D physical model group. Training sessions described arterial (5) and ductal (5) variant anatomy. While the 2D groups were taught with planar projections, the 3D group were taught variant anatomy using only 3D printed models. A multiple choice question form (with nine distractors per question) assessed identification of anatomical parts in both 2D images and tagged printed models for both groups. Thirty-four students participated in the study. The median total correct answer for 2D group was 83% (62%-94%) IQR, and 3D group was 83% (70%-94%) IQR. Both groups showed a significant increase in scores when assessed with 3D model, 2D and 3D groups (**p = 0.008, 0.003, respectively), two-tailed Wilcoxon-signed rank test. There was no difference in outcomes following two different methods of instruction (2D vs. 3D). However, both groups performed significantly better when tested on 3D models. This finding suggests that forms of assessment in anatomy may yield superior results when tailored to physical models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.