Evidence for PBL's DREEM advantage comes from six small Chinese RCTs with randomization and blinding weaknesses¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Three of six included studies generated allocation sequences by researcher preference (high risk of bias), and no study described blinding of participants, personnel, or outcome assessment. → Qin Yongjie 2016

Evidence¶

Qin Yongjie 2016¶

Qin Yongjie, Wang Yungui, Floden Robert E. (2016). The Effect of Problem-Based Learning on Improvement of the Medical Educational Environment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medical Principles and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1159/000449036

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment of the six included RCTs by two independent reviewers. Three studies were at high risk for allocation sequence generation; three used adequate randomization (random number table or stratified randomization). The authors state "The blinding of participants and personnel or outcome assessment was not described in any of the studies."

"The allocation sequence of the remaining 3 studies [27,29,30] was generated by the preference of the researchers, who assigned the students to the experimental group or control group; these studies were therefore judged to be high risk in this domain."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Included RCT evidence is of generally low methodologic quality with high heterogeneity, limiting confidence in the PBL advantage — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• PBL is associated with higher overall DREEM medical educational environment scores than LBL in randomized trials — related
• PBL outperformed LBL on all five DREEM subscales, including perceptions of teachers and social self-perceptions — related