Felix Nickel1, Jonathan D Hendrie1, Thomas Bruckner2, Karl F Kowalewski1, Hannes G Kenngott1, Beat P Müller-Stich1, Lars Fischer3. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University, INF 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg University, INF 305, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University, INF 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. lars.fischer@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
AIM: To analyze factors influencing the learning of surgical liver anatomy in a computer-based teaching module (TM). METHODS:Medical students in their third to fifth year of training (N [Formula: see text] 410) participated in three randomized trials, each with a different primary hypothesis, comparing two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) presentation modes in a TM for surgical liver anatomy. Computed tomography images were presented according to the study and allocation group. Students had to answer eleven questions on surgical liver anatomy and four evaluative questions. Scores and time taken to answer the questions were automatically recorded. Since the three studies used the same 15 questions in the TM, a pooled analysis was performed to compare learning factors across studies. RESULTS: 3D groups had higher scores (7.5 ± 1.7 vs. 5.6 ± 2.0; p < 0.001) and needed less time (503.5 ± 187.4 vs. 603.1 ± 246.7 s; p < 0.001) than 2D groups. Intensive training improved scores in 2D (p < 0.001). Men gave more correct answers than women, independent of presentation mode (7.2 ± 2.0 vs. 6.5 ± 2.1; p [Formula: see text] 0.003). An overall association was found between having fun and higher scores in 11 anatomical questions (p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, 3D groups had more fun than 2D groups (84.7 vs. 65.1 %; p < 0.001). If given the option, more students in the 2D groups (58.9 %) would have preferred a 3D presentation than students in the 3D group (35.9 %) would have preferred 2D (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: 3D was superior to 2D for learning of surgical liver anatomy. With training 2D showed similar results. Fun and gender were relevant factors for learning success.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To analyze factors influencing the learning of surgical liver anatomy in a computer-based teaching module (TM). METHODS: Medical students in their third to fifth year of training (N [Formula: see text] 410) participated in three randomized trials, each with a different primary hypothesis, comparing two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) presentation modes in a TM for surgical liver anatomy. Computed tomography images were presented according to the study and allocation group. Students had to answer eleven questions on surgical liver anatomy and four evaluative questions. Scores and time taken to answer the questions were automatically recorded. Since the three studies used the same 15 questions in the TM, a pooled analysis was performed to compare learning factors across studies. RESULTS: 3D groups had higher scores (7.5 ± 1.7 vs. 5.6 ± 2.0; p < 0.001) and needed less time (503.5 ± 187.4 vs. 603.1 ± 246.7 s; p < 0.001) than 2D groups. Intensive training improved scores in 2D (p < 0.001). Men gave more correct answers than women, independent of presentation mode (7.2 ± 2.0 vs. 6.5 ± 2.1; p [Formula: see text] 0.003). An overall association was found between having fun and higher scores in 11 anatomical questions (p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, 3D groups had more fun than 2D groups (84.7 vs. 65.1 %; p < 0.001). If given the option, more students in the 2D groups (58.9 %) would have preferred a 3D presentation than students in the 3D group (35.9 %) would have preferred 2D (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: 3D was superior to 2D for learning of surgical liver anatomy. With training 2D showed similar results. Fun and gender were relevant factors for learning success.
Entities:
Keywords:
Education; Hepatic; Liver; Oncology; Surgery
Authors: Rebecca Metzler; Daniel Stein; Ralf Tetzlaff; Thomas Bruckner; Hans-Peter Meinzer; Markus W Büchler; Martina Kadmon; Beat P Müller-Stich; Lars Fischer Journal: Teach Learn Med Date: 2012 Impact factor: 2.414
Authors: Judith Beermann; Ralf Tetzlaff; Thomas Bruckner; Max Schöebinger; Beat P Müller-Stich; Carsten N Gutt; Hans-Peter Meinzer; Martina Kadmon; Lars Fischer Journal: Med Educ Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: W Lamadé; G Glombitza; L Fischer; P Chiu; C E Cárdenas; M Thorn; H P Meinzer; L Grenacher; H Bauer; T Lehnert; C Herfarth Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2000-11
Authors: Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Jonathan D Hendrie; Mona W Schmidt; Tanja Proctor; Sai Paul; Carly R Garrow; Hannes G Kenngott; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Javier Rodrigo De La Garza; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Mirco Friedrich; Mona Wanda Schmidt; Thomas Bruckner; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Lars Fischer; Beat-Peter Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Trials Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mirco Friedrich; Christian Bergdolt; Patrick Haubruck; Thomas Bruckner; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Beat Peter Müller-Stich; Michael C Tanner; Felix Nickel Journal: Trials Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Grace V Ryan; Shauna Callaghan; Anthony Rafferty; Mary F Higgins; Eleni Mangina; Fionnuala McAuliffe Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Hannes Götz Kenngott; Micha Pfeiffer; Anas Amin Preukschas; Lisa Bettscheider; Philipp Anthony Wise; Martin Wagner; Stefanie Speidel; Matthias Huber; Felix Nickel; Arianeb Mehrabi; Beat Peter Müller-Stich Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 4.584