Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education.
Materials and methods: We searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students.
Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education.
Materials and methods: We searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students.
Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education.
Materials and methods: We searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students.
Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education.
Materials and methods: We searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students.
Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education.
Materials and methods: We searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students.
Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education.
Materials and methods: We searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students.
Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education.
Materials and methods: We searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students.
Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
administration of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models in Chinese medical education.
Materials and methods: We searched the following Chinese electronic databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, China Science Periodical Database, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. We also searched the following English electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Search Engine. We searched for published studies involving the combined administration of PBL+LBL teaching models in Chinese medical education. All randomized controlled trials were included. The focus of the meta-analysis was on the outcomes of knowledge scores, skill scores, medical writing scores, comprehensive ability scores and teaching satisfaction. A subgroup analysis was also performed.
Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included, with a total sample size of 2589 medical students. The PBL+LBL teaching model significantly increased knowledge scores (95% CI, 2.85-5.78; P < .00001), skill scores (95% CI, 0.51-3.71; P = .01), medical writing scores (95% CI, 1.04-4.04; P = .0009), comprehensive ability scores (95% CI, 2.04-8.71; P = .002) and teaching satisfaction (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59; P = .003) compared with the LBL teaching model alone. Additionally, a subgroup analysis showed significant differences in the effect of PBL+LBL on knowledge scores, medical writing scores, and comprehensive ability scores when comparing practical and theoretical courses. Another subgroup analysis that looked at the level of training showed that the PBL+LBL teaching model also significantly improved the knowledge scores of Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and Masters students.
