ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Effect of Team-Based Learning Interventions on the Learning Competency of Korean Nursing Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of team-based learning (TBL) methods in Korean nursing education, focusing on their impact on students' key learning competencies. Specifically, this study examined the effects of TBL on communication ability, self-efficacy, learning ability, and problem-solving skills while also assessing the overall efficacy of TBL compared to other teaching methods. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The relevant literature was sourced from Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of the retrieved papers. The literature was selected based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and the Risk of Bias for Nonrandomized Studies tool. Standardized mean differences and a random effects model were employed to determine effect sizes. A total of twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The overall standardized mean difference was 0.69 (confidence interval = 0.43-0.94,
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.