Claims

BOPPPS teaching significantly improves final examination scores compared with traditional teaching in undergraduate clinical and health education

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · 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 Pooled analysis of 15 studies (1198 BOPPPS, 1122 control participants) found significantly higher final examination scores in the BOPPPS group (SMD 1.14, 95% CI 0.84–1.43, P < 0.001), a large effect by Cohen's guidelines. → Zhu Jing 2025

Evidence

Zhu Jing 2025

Zhu Jing, Xiao Heng, Zhou Rui, Gan Xiaochuang, Gou Qitao, Tie Hongtao. (2025). The efficacy of the BOPPPS teaching model in clinical and health education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07274-9

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r3

Random-effects meta-analysis of 15 studies comparing BOPPPS with traditional teaching in undergraduate clinical and health disciplines. The pooled effect size was SMD = 1.14 (95% CI 0.84–1.43), which the authors interpret as "a large effect" under Cohen's guidelines; a prediction interval of [0.35, 1.93] was reported.

"Significant improvement in final examination scores was noted within the BOPPPS group when compared to the control group (SMD 1.14, 95% CI 0.84–1.43; P < 0.001; Fig. 3) with heterogeneity of 91% (P < 0.001)."

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.