Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33315939›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Comparison of problem-based learning and traditional teaching methods in medical psychology education in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Junwei Gao, Ling Yang, Jinghui Zhao, Lian Wang, Jiao Zou, Chunxiang Wang, Xiaotang Fan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Junwei GaoDepartment of Developmental Neuropsychology, School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1944-144X
Ling YangDepartment of Developmental Neuropsychology, School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China.
Jinghui ZhaoDepartment of Developmental Neuropsychology, School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China.
Lian WangDepartment of Developmental Neuropsychology, School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China.
Jiao ZouDepartment of Developmental Neuropsychology, School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China.
Chunxiang WangDepartment of Developmental Neuropsychology, School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China.
Xiaotang FanDepartment of Developmental Neuropsychology, School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPBL approach has been widely used in many Chinese universities over the past decade. However, the effects of PBL approach on medical psychology education in China are inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether the PBL approach was superior to the lecture-based teaching method in the context of the medical psychology curriculum in China.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to confirm the effectiveness of PBL in Chinese medical psychology. Corresponding databases were searched for available studies, where data were extracted to calculated Hedges' g and its 95% confidence interval in total and subgroup analyses. Subgroup analyses were also carried out.

resultsNine studies with 551 cases and 496 controls were identified. The total examination scores of students in the PBL approach group were significantly higher compared with students in the traditional lecture-based teaching group under the random effect model (Hedges' g = 1.510, 95%CI 0.792-2.227, p<0.001). Subgroup analyses based on major and school system exhibited similar results.

conclusionsOur study supported the notion that the PBL approach may be applicable to Chinese medical psychology education.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalProblem-Based LearningTeachingChinaCurriculumEducational MeasurementEducational StatusHumansPsychology, MedicalStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID33315939
PMCPMC7735601

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.