No difference between PBL and traditional groups in subjective evaluations of pharmacy students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Meta-analysis found no difference between PBL and traditional learning groups in subjective evaluations (OR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.57–1.66). → Galvao Tais F. 2014

Evidence¶

Galvao Tais F. 2014¶

Galvao Tais F., Silva Marcus T., Neiva Celiane S., Ribeiro Laura M., Pereira Mauricio G. (2014). Problem-Based Learning in Pharmaceutical Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Scientific World Journal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3950357/

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Random-effects meta-analysis of subjective evaluations (student surveys of confidence and perceived preparedness) across the included controlled pharmacy studies. The pooled estimate shows "no difference was found between the comparison groups"; equivalence was not tested.

"For the subjective assessment, no difference was found between the comparison groups (OR = 0.98; IC 95%: 0.57–1.66)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• PBL pharmacy students perform better on midterm examinations than students in traditional learning groups — related
• PBL is associated with higher theoretical examination scores than traditional lecture-based teaching in Chinese pharmacy education (SMD = 1.17) — related
• In the RCT, PBL students obtained significantly better final exam grades than LBL students, but the meta-analysis found no significant final-exam difference — related
• PBL produces higher examination scores than LBL in undergraduate pharmacology education (SMD = 2.03) — related