Clay‐Based Modeling in the Anatomist's Toolkit: A Systematic Review

• Published in: Anatomical sciences education Vol. 14; no. 2; pp. 252 - 262
• Main Authors: Curlewis, Keegan, Leung, Brook, Perera, Manesha, Bazira, Peter J., Sanders, Katherine A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley 01-03-2021; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: anatomical sciences education; Anatomy; Anatomy & physiology; clay‐based models; Educational Research; gross anatomy education; Instructional Effectiveness; Medical Education; postgraduate medical education; Student Improvement; Systematic review; Teaching Methods; three‐dimensional models; Time on Task; undergraduate medical education; Visual Aids; postgraduate medical education; medical education; gross anatomy education; three-dimensional models; anatomical sciences education; clay-based models; systematic review; undergraduate medical education
• ISSN: 1935-9772; 1935-9780
• DOI: 10.1002/ase.1996

Anatomical education has suffered from reduced teaching time and poor availability of staff and resources over the past thirty years. Clay‐based modeling (CBM) is an alternative technique for teaching anatomy that can improve student knowledge and experience. This systematic review aimed to summarize and appraise the quality of the literature describing the uses, advantages, and limitations of CBM compared to alternative methods of teaching human gross anatomy to students or qualified healthcare professionals. A systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted, and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess study quality. Out of the 829 studies identified, 12 papers met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for this review. The studies were of high quality, with a mean MERSQI score of 11.50/18. Clay‐based modeling can be used to teach all gross anatomical regions, and 11 studies demonstrated a significant improvement in short‐term knowledge gain in students who used CBM in comparison to other methods of learning anatomy. Eight studies that included subjective assessment showed that CBM is rated highly. However, some studies showed that students viewed CBM as juvenile and experienced difficulty making the models. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that CBM improves long‐term knowledge. Clay‐based modeling is an effective learning method for human gross anatomy and should be incorporated into the anatomists' toolkit. In the future, more randomized controlled studies with transparent study designs investigating the long‐term impact of CBM are needed.