ArticleBMJ open2024
Effects of six teaching strategies on medical students: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Which novel teaching strategy is most recommended in medical education? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of examination performance and test anxiety during bell-paced and self-paced gross anatomy laboratory examinations.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Trial
- Chatgpt vs traditional pedagogy: a comparative study in urological learning.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Teaching Oncology in the Medical Degree: Integrating Knowledge and Experience of a Multidisciplinary Tumour Board.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Construction of research feedback experimental teaching mode for medical undergraduate students and comparative study with traditional experimental teaching mode.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Computer case-based reasoning simulation versus traditional lectures for medical interns teaching of diagnosis and antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infection: a comparative quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMounting evidence has suggested that novel teaching strategies have a positive impact on the quality and efficiency of medical education. However, the comprehensive evidence about the superiority among various strategies is not clear. To address this issue, we aim to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the effects of six main strategies on medical education, including case-based learning, problem-based learning, team-based learning, flipped classrooms, simulation-based education and bridge-in, objective, preassessment, participatory learning, postassessment and summary. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, covering studies published from database inception to November 2023. Randomised controlled trials which evaluated the different teaching methods and meet the eligibility criteria will be included. The effectiveness of medical students' learning, which is evaluated by theoretical test score, experimental or practical test score, will be analysed as the primary outcomes. Besides, the secondary outcomes consist of learning satisfaction of students and formative evaluation score. The study selection and data extraction will be independently performed by two authors. The risk of bias in each study will be assessed using V.2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised controlled trials. To compare the effects of six teaching strategies, pairwise meta-analysis and NMA will be performed using Rev Man, STATA and R software. Statistical analyses including homogeneity tests, sensitivity analysis, consistency tests, subgroup analysis, Egger's test and publication bias will also be completed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal research ethics approval is required because this study is a meta-analysis based on published studies. The results will be disseminated to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023456050.
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.