Claims

Hybrid PBL+LBL pedagogy yields significantly better clinical skills assessment scores than LBL alone

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · 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? Students taught with PBL+LBL performed significantly better on clinical skills assessments than students taught with LBL alone (RR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.39–1.81, P < .00001). → Liu CX 2020

Evidence

Liu CX 2020

Liu CX, Ouyang WW, Wang XW, Chen D, Jiang ZL. (2020). Comparing hybrid problem-based and lecture learning (PBL + LBL) with LBL pedagogy on clinical curriculum learning for medical students in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019687

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analysis of the 13 studies reporting the clinical skills assessment score, analyzed with a random effects model due to high heterogeneity (I2 = 98%). The pooled relative risk favored PBL+LBL: "RR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.39∼1.81".

"Meta-analysis results suggested that the operation skills performance of students in PBL+LBL group was significantly superior to that in LBL group (RR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.39∼1.81, P < .00001)"

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.