ArticleBMC medical education2026
Application of the combined PBL-CBL teaching method of anaphylactic shock prevention and care in the fundamental nursing course.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent decades, numerous studies have explored Problem-based Learning (PBL) or Case-based Learning (CBL) alone, but few have investigated their combination. Fundamental nursing is a core course for nursing undergraduates, and anaphylactic shock (a life-threatening clinical emergency) is a key teaching content. Traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) lacks interaction and fails to enhance critical thinking, highlighting the need for teaching methods.
methodsNursing undergraduates from a medical college were randomly divided into two groups (n=50 each): the traditional group (LBL) and the PBL-CBL group (combined method). The intervention focused on anaphylactic shock in fundamental nursing (September 2022-June 2024). Data were collected via post-class tests (theoretical, practical, case analysis) and anonymous questionnaires (California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, satisfaction, time consumption). Statistical analysis used SPSS 18.0.
resultsThe PBL-CBL group had significantly higher total test scores (87.33±4.21 vs. 73.32±3.66, P<0.001) and better performance in all test sections. Questionnaire results showed higher critical thinking scores (truth-seeking, analytical skills, etc.), course satisfaction, and teacher-student interaction in the PBL-CBL group, though it consumed more learning time (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: The combined PBL-CBL method outperforms traditional LBL in deepening knowledge, enhancing clinical analysis ability, and improving critical thinking. It is a promising approach for fundamental nursing teaching, though it requires more student preparation time.
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.