Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31357986›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2019

Team-based learning pedagogy enhances the quality of Chinese pharmacy education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bingchen Lang, Lingli Zhang, Yunzhu Lin, Lu Han, Chuan Zhang, Yantao Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Team-based learning versus traditional teaching effect on pharmacy Students' Performance: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Bingchen LangDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Section 3, Renmin Nanlu, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Lingli ZhangDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Section 3, Renmin Nanlu, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. zhlingli@sina.com.
Yunzhu LinDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Section 3, Renmin Nanlu, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Lu HanDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Section 3, Renmin Nanlu, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Chuan ZhangDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Section 3, Renmin Nanlu, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Yantao LiuDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 20, Section 3, Renmin Nanlu, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent years have witnessed the wide application of team-based learning(TBL) pedagogy in Chinese pharmacy education. However, the relevant systematic review evaluating the effects of such new pedagogical approach has not been established. The present study was designed to examine systematically the effect of using TBL approach in pharmacy education in China.

methodsSix databases were searched from the inception to January 2019. The studies reporting the performance of pharmacy students in Chinese university or college receiving TBL pedagogy compared to those receiving traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) were enrolled to be analyzed. Scores of the objective theoretical test were considered as the primary outcome, and the results from questionnaires about the number of students who approved the effects of TBL pedagogy on improving their learning enthusiasm, self-study ability, thinking ability, and communication skills were considered as the secondary outcome. A meta-analysis was conducted following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses statement.

resultsA total of 1271 students in 12 studies published from 2013 to 2018 were enrolled in present analysis. Compared with traditional LBL pedagogy, TBL pedagogy exhibited more effectiveness in developing the objective tests scores of pharmacy students from both universities (SMD = 1.69, 95% CI [1.10, 2.28], p < 0.00001) and colleges (SMD = 4.37, 95% CI [1.33, 7.40], p < 0.00001), and such pedagogy applied well in experiments-oriented courses (SMD = 2.14, 95% CI [0.86, 3.43], p < 0.00001) and theory-oriented courses (SMD = 2.77, 95% CI [1.41, 4.14], p < 0.00001). In addition, it developed students' learning enthusiasm, students' self-study ability, thinking ability, and enhanced students' communication skills.

conclusionsTBL pedagogy has developed rapidly and applied widely in Chinese pharmacy education during the last decade. The results indicated that such novel pedagogy is compatible with the present situation of Chinese pharmacy education. And it could be considered as an effective method to enhance both the theoretical test scores and various abilities of Chinese pharmacy students.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorLearningProblem-Based LearningChinaCurriculumDatabases, FactualEducation, PharmacyHumansChinese pharmacy educationLecture-based learningMeta-analysisTeam-based learning

Identifiers

PMID31357986
PMCPMC6664710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.