Claims

PBL is more effective for laboratory courses than for theory courses in Chinese undergraduate medical education

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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 i3 The examination score SMD in the laboratory course subgroup (SMD = 2.01) was significantly higher than in the theory course subgroup (SMD = 0.72), a large difference between subgroups. → Zhang Yanqi 2015

Evidence

Zhang Yanqi 2015

Zhang Yanqi, Zhou Liang, Liu Xiaoyu, Liu Ling, Wu Yazhou, Zhao Zengwei, Yi Dali, Yi Dong. (2015). The Effectiveness of the Problem-Based Learning Teaching Model for Use in Introductory Chinese Undergraduate Medical Courses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120884

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup meta-analysis of examination scores by course type. The laboratory course subgroup showed SMD = 2.01 (95% CI 1.50–2.52) versus SMD = 0.72 (95% CI 0.56–0.89) for theory courses, a difference the authors report as statistically significant (P<0.001).

"The examination score SMD value between experimental and control groups for the "laboratory course" subgroup was found to be higher than that of the "theory course" subgroup"

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.