SynthesisMedicine2018
Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of case-based learning and three-dimensional printing for tetralogy of fallot instruction in clinical medical undergraduates: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Effects of problem-based learning modules within blended learning courses in medical statistics - A randomized controlled pilot study.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Post-graduate nephrology education in China: structure, workforce gaps, regional disparities, and the emerging role of critical care nephrology.Renal failure · 2026Review
- The dynamic case-based learning model: conducive to enhancing the practical learning effectiveness of dermatology for medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The Usefulness of 3D Heart Models as a Tool of Congenital Heart Disease Education: A Narrative Review.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2025Review
- Reform of teaching and practice of the integrated teaching method BOPPPS-PBL in the course "clinical haematological test technique".BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Application and evaluation of the hybrid "Problem-Based Learning" model based on "Rain Classroom" in experimental courses of medical molecular biology.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Application of problem-based learning combined with a virtual simulation training platform in clinical biochemistry teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- A scoping review of clinical reasoning research with Asian healthcare professionals.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2021Article
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
introductionThe aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of the combined administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
resultsA total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsBased on the current evidence, this meta-analysis showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model is an effective way to increase knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores and to improve teaching satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.