Claims

Compared to lecture-based learning, PACS-CBL produced the greatest improvement in theoretical exam scores, with 3D-PBL and 3D-CBL next, but PACS-CBL evidence was low quality

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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 i? Versus LBL, PACS-CBL improved theoretical exam scores most (MD 13.53, 95% CI 11.83 to 15.23), followed by 3D-PBL (MD 9.44) and 3D-CBL (MD 7.83). → Gu Peng 2026

Evidence

Gu Peng 2026

Gu Peng, Xu Zhendong, Zhang Zheng, Wen Yonghao, Jia Yanqing, Du Ying, Wen Tianlin, Man Chao, Jia Zhiwei, Wu Yaohong, Li Wei. (2026). Comparative effectiveness of orthopedic teaching methods in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08582-4

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Network meta-analysis of theoretical knowledge exam scores from 50 studies, reported via league matrix of 10 teaching designs with 45 comparisons; mean differences with 95% CIs versus LBL are as printed, and PACS-CBL's evidence was rated low quality while 3D-PBL was high quality.

"Compared to LBL, PACS-CBL (MD 13.53, 95% CI 11.83 to 15.23) had the greatest improvement in theoretical exam scores, followed by 3D-PBL (MD 9.44, 95% CI 8.69 to 10.19) and 3D-CBL (MD 7.83, 95% CI 6.99 to 8.66)."

Discussion

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.