SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
The effectiveness of mind mapping versus lecture-based learning in medical education of China's standardized residency training: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mind mapping has been widely used as an intervention in medical education of China's standardized residents training (SRT) program. Our study aims to investigate the effectiveness of mind mapping compared with lecture-based learning (LBL) in China's SRT. Methods: A PRISMA guideline based systemic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251244861) was performed. We searched the publications in PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database and Wanfang database up to December 24, 2025 to identify randomized controlled studies with outcomes measure from mind mapping and LBL. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. All the statistical analyses were performed by R 4.1.1 software. Results: A total of 52 studies with 3,312 participants (Mind mapping group = 1,698, LBL group = 1,614) were selected in our meta-analysis. These studies published from 2017 to 2025. Meta-analysis identified significantly higher examination scores in mind mapping group compared to LBL group in theoretical knowledge (SMD = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.16-1.74), case analysis (SMD = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95-1.72), and procedural skill (SMD = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.23-2.13). Questionnaire surveys results showed that residents were more satisfied with the mind mapping and had improvements in level of theoretical knowledge, learning motivation, problem-solving ability, proficiency in literature retrieval, clinical skills, and teamwork. There were 98% of the included studies lacked allocation concealment and blinding, and high heterogeneity (I Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicates that mind mapping is potentially more effective than LBL in medical education of China's SRT system. Given the limitations of substantial heterogeneity and very low certainty evidence, our findings are insufficient for strong practice recommendations. Further well-designed studies are required to confirm our findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251244861.
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.