No single study affected the statistically significant PBL advantage in sensitivity analysis¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Sequential removal of each individual study did not affect the statistically significant difference in total examination scores between PBL and control students. → Gao Junwei 2020

Evidence¶

Gao Junwei 2020¶

Gao Junwei, Yang Ling, Zhao Jinghui, Wang Lian, Zou Jiao, Wang Chunxiang, Fan Xiaotang. (2020). Comparison of problem-based learning and traditional teaching methods in medical psychology education in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243897

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Sensitivity analysis removing each study sequentially to assess its influence on the pooled Hedges' g. The article reports no single study affected the significant difference; no effect size is printed for this analysis.

"The results showed that no single study could affect the statistically significant difference in total examination scores between students in PBL groups and controls"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Removing 5 heterogeneous studies leaves the PBL advantage intact (SMD 0.79) with reduced heterogeneity, and the Liu et al study most affects stability — related
• After removing five outlying studies identified by Galbraith plot, the PBL advantage persisted with low heterogeneity (Hedges' g = 0.592, I2 = 26.807%) — related
• The CBL exam-score advantage is robust to subgroup and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses but shows potential publication bias — related
• PBL is associated with significantly higher total medical psychology examination scores than traditional lecture-based teaching in China (Hedges' g = 1.510) — related