Claims

Matsui et al. found more non-PBL graduates working in primary care (9% difference) with no significance reported

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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.

q2 i? Matsui et al. found that more non-PBL graduates were working in primary care (9%) with no significance mentioned and no associated P values. → Tsigarides Jordan 2017

Evidence

Tsigarides Jordan 2017

Tsigarides Jordan, Wingfield Laura R., Kulendran Myutan. (2017). Does a PBL-based medical curriculum predispose training in specific career paths? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Research Notes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5219658/

q2 · i? · review · r3

Small study of 468 participants in Japan comparing graduates from two tracts (PBL and non-PBL curriculum) at Tokyo Women's Medical University, an all-female cohort aged 25–53 graduating 1989–2003. The review reports "more non-PBL graduates were working in primary care (9%)" with no significance mentioned.

"Although this study found that more non-PBL graduates were working in primary care (9%) there was no significance mentioned and no associated P values."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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