Claims

CBL significantly improves problem-solving abilities compared with LBL (RR = 2.19)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.

q2 i? CBL significantly improves pharmacy students' problem-solving abilities compared with LBL (RR = 2.19, 95% CI [1.26–3.80]). → Chen Min 2025

Evidence

Chen Min 2025

Chen Min, Li Xinyao, Liu Qingming, Zhou Jing, Fan Xiaofang, Liu Yantao, Lin Yunzhu, Ni Jiaqi. (2025). The effectiveness of case-based learning compared with lecture-based learning in pharmacy education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07927-9

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analysis of two of six questionnaire-survey studies (535 students assessed overall) with quantitative data. The pooled risk ratio is significant and favours CBL (RR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.26–3.80), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 79%). A risk ratio is not a standardized mean difference, so the impact tier is left uncoded (i?) rather than converted; the effect is positive, not null.

"Meta-analysis of the two studies [22, 23] with quantitative data showed that CBL significantly improved problem-solving abilities compared to LBL (RR = 2.19, 95% CI [1.26–3.80], I2 = 79%, P < 0.05)"

Discussion

Learner Variables

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.