ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Team-based vs. problem-based learning in undergraduate surgery: a randomized controlled trial in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The primary objective measured in our study is to determine whether Team-Based Learning (TBL) is a superior pedagogical approach compared to Problem-Based Learning (PBL) or not. We focused on our secondary objectives, which include promoting problem-solving, facilitating independent learning, and engaging students. The study was conducted among sixth-year clinical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Tabuk. Methods: In this interventional study, we targeted 66 medical students in the final clinical year in our faculty of medicine at the University of Tabuk during the period from 15/10/2024 to 15/01/2025. The control group (PBL) comprised 32 students, whereas the case group (TBL) comprised 34 students. At the end of the clinical sessions, all 66 students took a summative test to assess their knowledge using 14 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that were part of an online self-administered, voluntary questionnaire. Independent-samples statistical tests were used to compare the outcomes of perception, skills, attitude, and practical competency scores. All analyses were performed using SPSS software (Version 27), and statistical significance was defined as two-tailed Results: The study revealed that students in the TBL group achieved an average score of 9.94 out of 14 on MCQs, with a standard deviation of 2.28. In contrast, the PBL group had an average score of 8.84 and a standard deviation of 2.24, with a Conclusion: The TBL and PBL methodologies yielded comparable summative outcomes for both student cohorts. The systematic implementation of TBL as a pedagogical tool can enhance students' knowledge acquisition. Our study found that final-year MBBS students prefer both PBL and TBL.
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.