Table 1 Basic characteristics of the 17 included studies
Study | Year | Region | 3D vs. conventional | Organ | Observe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chen | 2020 | China | 23 vs. 24 (2D images) | Gastrocolic Trunk | Test results, satisfaction |
Tanner | 2020 | United States | 45 vs. 43 (cadaver materials) | Skull | Test results, satisfaction |
Yi | 2019 | China | 20 vs. 20 (2D images) | Head | Test results |
Bangeas | 2019 | United States | 10 vs. 10 (2D images) | Colon, rectum | Satisfaction, usefulness, choice tendency, test results |
Hojo | 2019 | Japan | 51 vs. 51 (textbook group/2D images) | Pelvis | Test results |
Cai | 2018 | Singapore | 17 vs. 18 (2D images) | Knee joint | Accuracy |
Huang | 2018 | China | 47 vs. 47 (physical model) | Acetabulum | Objective tests, usefulness, accuracy, choice tendency |
Lin | 2018 | China | 22 vs. 20 (atlas) | Head | Test results |
Su | 2018 | China | 32 vs. 31 (CT) | Heart | Test results |
Wu | 2018 | China | 45 vs. 45 (CT) | Spine, pelvis, upper limb, | Satisfaction, answering time, test results |
lower limb | |||||
Chen | 2017 | China | 26 vs. 27 (cadaver materials) | Skull | Test results |
Jones | 2017 | United States | 17 vs. 19(2D images) | Vascular rings and slings | Test results |
Loke | 2017 | United States | 18 vs. 17 (2D images) | Anatomy of congenital | Knowledge acquisition, satisfaction, test results |
heart disease | |||||
Smith | 2017 | United Kingdom | 66 vs. 61 (cadaver materials) | Heart, lung | Test results |
Wang | 2017 | China | 17 vs. 17 (plastic cardiac model) | Heart | Satisfaction, answering time, choice tendency |
Lim | 2016 | Australia | 16 vs. 18 (cadaveric materials) | Heart | Test results |
Li | 2015 | China | 21 vs. 22 (female, CT); | Spine | Usefulness, answering time |
19 vs. 18 (male, CT) |