SynthesisPloS one2025
Effectiveness of Peer-assisted learning in medical education: A meta-analysis study.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Peer tutoring in clinical simulation for health sciences education: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Informal Near-Peer Teaching Effects on Medical Student Pre-Clinical Learning.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Article
- From learners to teachers: a peer-assisted learning model in undergraduate orthopedic education: a quasi-experimental study.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Article
- Peer Learning in Medical and Health Professions Education: Evidence, Design Principles, and Pedagogical Reflection.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of peer-assisted learning (PAL) and traditional teaching methods on the theoretical knowledge and practical skill education in clinical medicine by summarizing the relevant randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies reported to date. A comprehensive search was conducted across several medical literature databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Springer, Ovid, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China Biology Medicine Disc (CBMdisc). All pertinent articles, reviews, and references published from January 1970 to May 2023 were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 software. A total of 81 RCTs were included in this analysis. The findings indicated that PAL surpassed traditional teaching methods in enhancing the transfer of theoretical knowledge and the acquisition of practical skills, especially in terms of student satisfaction and acceptance. It was also observed that, although PAL displayed advantages in certain areas, its effectiveness might not be substantial in fields demanding high levels of specialized knowledge. Furthermore, the reliability of the findings could be constrained by small sample sizes and inadequate implementation of blinding methods. Consequently, it is concluded that PAL is an effective and promising teaching method. Nonetheless, more rigorous research is required in the future to comprehensively explore the role of PAL in medical education.
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.