Emerging teaching methods improve both theoretical knowledge scores and clinical skill scores in dental education¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q4·i2medium
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.
q4 i2 Theoretical scores improved significantly (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.72, P < .001). → Pang Xuefei 2024
q4 i2 Clinical skill scores improved significantly (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.15-0.76, P < .001). → Pang Xuefei 2024
Evidence¶
Pang Xuefei 2024¶
Pang Xuefei, Li Ling, Liu Xu, Wang Yan, Yang Bo. (2024). Application of Emerging Teaching Models in Dental Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Dental Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2024.05.016
q4 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3
Subgroup analysis of assessment content (Figure 3A) in the meta-analysis of 29 RCTs. Both outcome types showed significant pooled effects: "theoretical scores" SMD = 0.52 and "clinical skill scores" SMD = 0.45, both P < .001.
"whether it was theoretical scores (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.32-0.72, P < .001) or clinical skill scores (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.15-0.76, P < .001) (Figure 3A)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Emerging teaching methods (PBL, CBL, FC) significantly improve dental students' exam scores compared to lecture-based learning — related
- Case-based learning and combined emerging methods show non-significant pooled advantages over lecture-based learning — related
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.