CBL effects differ between theoretical and practical courses for knowledge, skill and comprehensive ability scores¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Subgroup analysis showed significant differences in CBL effects on knowledge, skill and comprehensive ability scores when comparing theoretical and practical courses. → Dong Haitao 2022

Evidence¶

Dong Haitao 2022¶

Dong Haitao, Guo Chunlan, Zhou Lian, Zhao Jizhi, Wu Xiaomin, Zhang Xinyuan, Zhang Xin. (2022). Effectiveness of case-based learning in Chinese dental education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048497

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup analysis reported in Table 2 of the meta-analysis. Theoretical courses showed larger pooled effects (e.g. knowledge SMD 1.78, 14 studies) than practical courses (knowledge SMD 1.1, 7 studies); skill-score heterogeneity was non-significant in theoretical courses. No single effect size is printed for the overall subgroup contrast.

"The outcome revealed that there were significant differences in the effects of CBL on knowledge scores, skill scores and comprehensive ability scores when comparing theoretical and practical courses."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Subgroup results: CBL ranks best for clinical curricula and across educational backgrounds, while PBL ranks best for basic courses, developing countries, and operational skills — related
• CBL is the highest-ranked strategy for enhancing medical students' theoretical test scores, with CBL, PBL, SBL and FC each significantly outperforming LBL — related
• Cluster analysis identifies PBL + WeChat, TBL and CBL + WeChat as most promising for theoretical and practical performance with low dissatisfaction — related