Claims

Blended teaching (TBL plus feedback and reflection) outperformed traditional bedside teaching on clinical reasoning performance

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i3 Blended teaching compared with traditional bedside teaching had a statistically significant and very large effect on clinical reasoning performance (SMD 1.241; P = 0.002). → Delavari S 2024

Evidence

Delavari S 2024

Delavari S, Barzkar F, Rikers MJP, Pourahmadi M, Soltani Arabshahi SK, Keshtkar A, Dargahi H, Yaghmaei M, Monajemi A. (2024). Teaching and learning clinical reasoning skill in undergraduate medical students: A scoping review. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309606

q3 · i3 · review · r2

The review reports this from Gong et al.'s study (reference [70]): a blended intervention combining team-based learning, feedback, reflection and teacher summarizing outperformed traditional bedside teaching, with printed effect size SMD = 1.241 and wide confidence interval 0.136–2.346.

"Blended teaching (TBL + feedback + reflection + summarizing key points and commented on students' performance by teacher) compared with traditional bedside teaching had a statistically significant and very large effect on clinical reasoning performance (SMD, 1.241 [0.136–2.346]; P = 0.002)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.