Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32311943›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2020

Comparing hybrid problem-based and lecture learning (PBL + LBL) with LBL pedagogy on clinical curriculum learning for medical students in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chun-Xiao Liu, Wei-Wei Ouyang, Xiao-Wen Wang, Dan Chen, Zhao-Lei Jiang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Problem-Based Learning-Standardized Preoperative Conversation Improves Neurosurgery Residents' Understanding of Cerebellopontine Angle Tumors.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Chun-Xiao LiuOffice of Postgraduate Education and Training, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University.
Wei-Wei OuyangOffice of Education and Training, Chongqing Health Service Center.
Xiao-Wen WangDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.
Dan ChenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.
Zhao-Lei JiangDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNChongqing Medical University · CNOffice of Education · USShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProblem-based learning (PBL) combined lecture based learning (LBL) has been a trend adopted as a new medical pedagogical approach in Chinese medical teaching. This study aims to evaluate the impacts of hybrid PBL and LBL pedagogy compared with LBL teaching method on the learning achievements of clinical curriculum for Chinese medicine students.

methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through a systematic literature search of electronic databases and article references up to June 2019. PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Database, CNKI, and China Biology Medicine database (CBM) were searched. End points included knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction.

resultsTotally 20 randomized controlled studies were finally included and all Chinese literatures, involving 1817 patients. Compared with traditional LBL pedagogy, hybrid PBL and LBL pedagogy significantly increased the clinical theoretical knowledge assessment score (RR = 4.84, 95% CI: 2.92∼6.76, P < .00001), clinical skills assessment score (RR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.39∼1.81, P < .00001), comprehensive ability score (RR = 9.13, 95% CI: 8.42∼9.84, P < .00001) and teaching satisfaction (RR = 2.58, 95% CI: 1.84∼3.62, P < .00001), The meta-regression results showed that expertise-level of students and course type were the factors that caused heterogeneity.

conclusionsHybrid PBL and LBL pedagogy integrates the advantages of conventional teaching methods and novel teaching methods, remarkably improves the teaching efficacy, demonstrates easy acceptance by students, and meets the demand of modern medical education, so it is an effective approach to cultivate the medical talents with an ability of innovative thinking and can be advocated and popularized as a teaching means.

Indexed as

ChinaClinical CompetenceEducation, MedicalHumansLearningProblem-Based LearningRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID32311943
PMCPMC7220526
OpenAlexW3017244233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.