SynthesisBMC medical education2025
Concept mapping teaching method and nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of mapping-based teaching strategies in pediatric nursing education: effects on learning outcomes among nurses and nursing students.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of concept mapping-based self-care education on quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a non-randomized quasi-experimental study.BMC research notes · 2026Trial
- The effect of cooperative learning approach with concept maps on nursing students' knowledge acquisition on symptom management in cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- The Relationship Between the Perception of Undergraduate Nursing Students of the Nursing Concept Map and Their Learning Styles.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2026Article
- Basic Thinking Skills and Their Direct Instructional Approaches: A Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcept map is a novel metacognitive approach in education that can improve critical thinking and decision making skills in students and nurses. Therefore, the current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted aimed to determine the effect of the concept map approach in nursing education.
methodsThe present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to analyze the published studies in the no time limit until Sep. 2024 according to the PRISMA 2020 guideline. Articles related to the purpose of the study were obtained from MagIran, SID, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of science (WoS) databases, and Google Scholar search engine using relevant and validated keywords. Heterogeneity among studies was examined using the I
resultsIn the initial search, 579 studies were found, of which finally 44 articles with a sample size of 1722 people in the intervention group, and 1712 people in the control group were included in the meta-analysis. As a result of combining the studies, the educational performance score in the intervention group increased more than the control group [95% confidence interval: (1.693 ± 0.194, P < 0.001)]. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the positive effect of performing concept map is more in the nursing students than working nurses, although this result was not statistically significant (P ˃ 0.05).
conclusionsThe results of this study showed that the concept map has significantly increased the performance of nursing education. The results of this study can be considered by educational and therapeutic policy makers.
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.