Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38459551›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2024

Use of problem-based learning in orthopaedics education: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Ting Li, Ruohong Song, Wenjie Zhong, Wenao Liao, Jiang Hu, Xilin Liu, Fei Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Next-Generation Techniques in Orthopaedic Teaching and Learning.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Ting LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Ruohong SongDepartment of Cardiology, Sichuan Tianfu New District People's Hospital, Chengdu, 610213, China.
Wenjie ZhongDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Wenao LiaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Jiang HuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Xilin LiuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, China. airota@126.com.
Fei WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, China. 3635167263@qq.com.

Funding

Key Project of Sichuan Science and Technology Department 2021YFS0383Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital research fundings 30420200035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, problem-based learning (PBL) has been widely used in many disciplines, but no systematic review has explored the advantages and disadvantages of PBL in orthopaedics education.

methodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Chongqing VIP Database (VIP), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases up to April 2023 to identify for relevant studies. Relevant studies were identified by using specific eligibility criteria, and data were extracted.

resultsA total of 51 randomized controlled trials with 4268 patients were included. Compared with traditional education, PBL teaching yielded significantly higher knowledge scores (SMD=1.10, 95% CI: 0.78~1.41, P<0.00001), procedural skill scores and clinical skill scores than traditional teaching (SMD=2.07, 95% CI: 1.61~2.53, P<0.00001; SMD=1.20, 95% CI: 0.88~1.52, P<0.00001). Moreover, the total scores were higher in the PBL teaching group than in the traditional teaching group (MD=5.69, 95% CI: 5.11~6.26, P<0.00001). Students also expressed higher levels of interest and satisfaction in the PBL teaching group than in the traditional teaching group (OR=4.70, 95% CI: 3.20~6.93, P<0.00001; OR=5.43, 95% CI: 3.83~7.69, P<0.00001). However, there was less learning time and higher levels of learning pressure in the PBL teaching group (OR=0.12, 95% CI: 0.06~0.24, P<0.00001; OR=5.95, 95% CI: 3.16~11.23, P<0.00001).

conclusionCurrent evidence indicates that PBL teaching can increase knowledge scores, procedural skill scores, and clinical skill scores. Students have higher levels of interest in teaching and higher levels of teaching satisfaction in the PBL group. However, students can feel higher levels of study pressure and experience less study time. The findings of the current study need to be further verified in multicentre, double-blind and large-sample RCTs.

Indexed as

OrthopedicsProblem-Based LearningHumansLearningRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStudentsMeta-analysisPBLRCTTraditional education

Identifiers

PMID38459551
PMCPMC10921736

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.