Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40144176›Full record

ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2025

Effectiveness of case-based learning in comparison to alternate learning methods on learning competencies and student satisfaction among healthcare professional students: A systematic review.

Beena Varma, Vineetha Karuveettil, Ritin Fernandez, Elizabeth Halcomb, Kaye Rolls, S Vijay Kumar, M S Aravind

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2025. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Billing and Coding Rounds: Turning Daily Encounters Into Dollars and Sense.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

7 authors.

Beena VarmaDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Vineetha KaruveettilDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
Ritin FernandezSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Elizabeth HalcombCentre for Research in Nursing and Health, St George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia.
Kaye RollsSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
S Vijay KumarDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.
M S AravindDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the effectiveness of case-based learning (CBL) versus alternate learning methods on learning competencies and student satisfaction among healthcare students. A systematic search of the PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted from database inception to December 31, 2021. The grey literature, Google Scholar, and hand searching were also conducted. The keywords used were "case-based learning," "case learning," "traditional learning," "problem-based learning," "simulation-based learning," "learning competenc*," "competenc*," "student satisfaction," "satisfaction," "medic*," "dent*," "nursing" "pharmac*," "students," "undergraduate," "postgraduate," and "clerkship." Only studies comparing CBL methods with a control group or with an alternate learning method conducted on healthcare students were considered. The risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers. Data analysis was undertaken using RevMan 5.4. Twenty-two studies were included in the final review, of which 20 studies compared CBL with lecture-based learning (LBL) and two compared CBL with simulation-based learning. Pooled data demonstrated that critical thinking scores were significantly higher among those receiving CBL than those receiving LBL (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.21-1.29). Similarly, significantly greater scores for teamwork and communication were identified in the CBL group than in the LBL groups (SMD: 0.24; 95%CI: -0.19-0.66). However, no significant difference in knowledge and comprehension scores (SMD: 0.41; 95%CI: 0.20-0.62) and self-directed learning (SMD: 0.30; 95%CI: 0.10-0.49) was identified among those who received CBL compared to those who received LBL. Based on the results of this review, CBL has been identified as a superior teaching method as it significantly improves critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork, and communication skills and enhances clinical skills development and student satisfaction. However, more rigorous RCTs are needed to underpin the available evidence.

Indexed as

Case-based learningdidactic learninghealth science educationmedical educationsimulation-based learning

Identifiers

PMID40144176
PMCPMC11940068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.