Multiple new teaching methods (PBL + CBL, CBL + WeChat, TBL, PBL, PBL + EBM, CBL) each significantly outperform LBL on theoretical scores¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3·i2medium
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 i2 PBL + CBL, PBL + CP, CBL + WeChat, TBL, PBL, PBL + EBM and CBL each show significantly higher theoretical scores than LBL, with SMDs from 0.98 to 2.07. → Guan Cheng Ye 2025
Evidence¶
Guan Cheng Ye 2025¶
Guan Cheng Ye, Chun Ping Liu, Wei Li, Hua Chao Zhu, Liu Lv, Zhen Hong Zhu, Yong Hong Wang, Jie Hu, Xiao Jia Zheng, Jing Ying Fang, Yu Cao Ma, Ming Xuan Liu, Yi Wen Wang, Ying Kai Gao, Zi Yu Zhang, Lu Ming Zhao, Cun Xiang Xie, Min Yee Lim, Hai Long Wang. (2025). Effectiveness of multiple teaching methods in standardized training of internal medicine residents in China: a network meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07020-1
q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3
In the theoretical-score NMA (72 studies, 4874 trainees), seven interventions each beat LBL significantly (P < 0.05), with printed SMDs and 95% CIs as quoted.
"PBL + CBL method (SMD = 1.61, 95% CI [1.12, 2.1]) PBL + CP method (SMD = 2.07, 95% CI [0.81, 3.34]), CBL + Wechat method (SMD = 1.74, 95% CI [0.5, 2.99]), PBL + Wechat method (SMD = 2.3, 95% CI [1.19, 3.42]), TBL method (SMD = 1.57, 95% CI [0.28, 2.85]), PBL method (SMD = 1.35, 95% CI [0.78, 1.92]), PBL + EBM method (SMD = 1.28, 95% CI [0.3, 2.25]) and CBL method (SMD = 0.98, 95% CI [0.21, 1.75]) have significant advantages"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Cluster analysis identifies PBL + WeChat, TBL and CBL + WeChat as most promising for theoretical and practical performance with low dissatisfaction — related
- Combining teaching methods (PBL + WeChat, CBL + WeChat, PBL + CBL) achieves better academic performance than single methods in Chinese resident training — related
- Most new teaching methods reduce dissatisfaction relative to LBL, with WeChat-based combinations most favoured by residents — related
- TBL alone and TBL combined with other methods both outperform LBL, with no significant difference between the two TBL formats — related
- PBL combined with WeChat outperforms LBL in theoretical test scores and reduces dissatisfaction among Chinese internal medicine residents — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- PBL combined with clinical practice yields the largest improvement in medical record analysis scores versus LBL — related
- PBL alone most improves self-directed learning ability of internal medicine residents versus LBL — related
- Both Chinese and Western students benefit from TBL, with Western students showing larger score improvements — related
- TBL students show significantly higher classroom engagement than LBL students — related
- TBL students show significantly higher knowledge retention than LBL students — related
- TBL students achieve significantly higher post-test final scores than LBL students in medical education — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Team-based learning outperforms LBL in improving practical test scores of internal medicine residents — 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.