ArticleBMJ open2025
Influence of six teaching methods on critical thinking ability of nursing students: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionTo enhance nursing students' critical thinking abilities, numerous educators have explored alternative teaching methods. While meta-analyses have confirmed that various approaches are effective in developing critical thinking, consensus regarding their comparative effectiveness remains elusive. Furthermore, few investigations have directly contrasted the outcomes across these methods, highlighting the necessity to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of their impact on nursing students' critical thinking skills. Accordingly, this study aims to assess the effects of six teaching methods on nursing students' critical thinking abilities.
methodsA comprehensive literature search will be carried out up to May 2025 across various databases, such as PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, OVID, CNKI, Wanfang Database and the China Biological Literature Database (CBM). The search strategy will specifically target randomised controlled trials meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers will screen the selected studies and extract pertinent data. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A network meta-analysis will then be performed using Stata software, incorporating the following analytical components: heterogeneity, network evidence diagrams, publication bias plots, league tables, forest plots, subgroup analyses or meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system will be leveraged to appraise the overall quality of evidence related to critical thinking abilities across all compared interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal research ethics approval is required. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024618735.
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.