ReviewCureus2026
Active Learning in Biostatistics Education for Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biostatistics is an essential part of medical training and evidence-based decision-making. However, many students find it difficult, which can lead to anxiety and poor performance. Hence, this review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of active learning methodologies compared to traditional teaching methods for undergraduate medical students. A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The study protocol was also registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under registration number CRD420261299740. Studies on active methodologies for teaching biostatistics to undergraduate medical students were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (2000-2026). Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. The primary outcome was academic performance, and the secondary outcomes were satisfaction and perceived knowledge. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB-2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). The meta-analysis used the standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), a random effects model, and assessed heterogeneity with I² and Egger's test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. A total of 17 studies involving 3,702 medical students were included in the analysis. Active methodologies were found to significantly improve academic performance compared to traditional teaching methods (SMD = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.38-1.27; p = 0.0003; I² = 95%). The effect was also significant by region: America (SMD = 0.51; p = 0.02), Asia (SMD = 1.12; p = 0.02), and Europe (SMD = 0.63; p = 0.0002). In pre-post intervention studies, significant improvements were observed after the intervention (SMD = 2.11; p < 0.0001; I² = 98%). Additionally, higher perceived knowledge (SMD = 0.64; p = 0.009) and student satisfaction (SMD = 0.85; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) were observed in the intervention group. No evidence of publication bias was detected using Egger's test (p = 0.335). However, several studies presented a moderate to serious risk of bias, and hence, the results should be interpreted with caution. In conclusion, active learning methodologies are effective in improving biostatistics learning.
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.