SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Identifying the most recommended novel teaching strategy in orthopaedics education: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the growing adoption of novel teaching strategies in orthopaedics education, their comparative effectiveness remains unclear. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates and ranks the efficacy of problem-based learning (PBL), virtual reality (VR), Video, three dimensions (3D) simulations, flipped classrooms (FC), 3D combined PBL, FC combined team based learning (TBL), and traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) in orthopaedic education. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 31, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teaching strategies in orthopaedics education were included. Specific criteria were utilized to identify relevant studies, and data extraction was subsequently carried out. Outcomes included theoretical knowledge, procedural or clinical skills, and learner satisfaction. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed using R software. Results: After screening 893 studies, 11 RCTs involving 690 medical students or residents were included in the NMA. VR was more effective than LBL for procedural or clinical skills (SMD = 6.88, 95% CI: 1.05-12.13), while FC + TBL improved theoretical test scores with the highest SUCRA probability (81.73%). FC + TBL also enhanced student satisfaction (SMD = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.04-2.79), with PBL having the highest SUCRA probability (61.53%) for this outcome. Conclusion: Our NMA found FC + TBL and VR to be the most effective novel teaching strategies in orthopaedics education for improving theoretical and clinical skill scores, respectively. However, differences among strategies were minor. Future studies with larger samples, diverse populations, and more outcome measures are needed for a comprehensive evaluation.
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.