SynthesisBMC medical education2026
TBL alone or combined with other teaching methods for neurology education in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTeam-based learning (TBL) has been applied in neurology teaching. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of TBL alone or in combination with other methods versus lecture-based learning (LBL) on improving the teaching effects of neurology in China.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of TBL and LBL on neurology education in China. The Review Manager 5.2 software and STATA 15.0 software were employed for this meta-analysis of the included studies.
resultsA total of 16 studies involving 1267 medical students were included. The pooled results showed that compared to traditional LBL, TBL was related to higher theoretical knowledge scores and practical skill scores (SMD = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.54, p < 0.00001; SMD = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.19 to 2.24, p < 0.00001; respectively). Additionally, our results demonstrated the efficacy of TBL in enhancing students' self-study ability, communication skills, and teamwork ability (SMD = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.61, p < 0.00001; SMD = 2.36, 95% CI: 0.74 to 3.98, p = 0.004; SMD = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.26, p < 0.00001; respectively ). Meanwhile, students in the TBL group were more satisfied than those in the LBL group.
conclusionsOur data suggest that TBL-based teaching approaches (including TBL alone and TBL combined with other methods) may be more effective than LBL in enhancing theoretical knowledge scores and practical skill scores in Chinese neurology education. Additionally, TBL may be associated with improved self-study capacity, communication skills, teamwork ability as well as student satisfaction. However, considering the limitations such as the low methodological quality of the included studies and obvious heterogeneity, future multicenter, cross-cultural and high-quality studies are needed to validate and generalize our findings.
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.