Claims

SP+CBL pedagogy significantly improves theoretical knowledge achievement compared with LBL in Chinese clinical education.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · 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? SP+CBL significantly improves theoretical knowledge scores compared with LBL (MD 5.91, 95% CI 4.63 to 7.18). → Yu Zizhong 2025

Evidence

Yu Zizhong 2025

Yu Zizhong, Zhao Zhao, Chen Xinyue, Shi Jiayi, Liang Yiting, Zhang Xicheng, Qu Mengjiao, Huang Meiyue, Li Panpan, Li Dan, Li Man, He Jinbo. (2025). Effects of standardised patients (SP) combined with case-based learning (CBL) in Chinese clinical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095705

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analysis of 27 RCTs (n=2419) using a random effects model due to considerable heterogeneity (I2=93.9%). The article reports a mean difference of 5.91 points on a 100-point scale, an unstandardised difference rather than a standardised effect size.

"The meta-analysis revealed that, compared with traditional teaching methods, the combination of SP and CBL resulted in significantly greater theoretical knowledge achievements (MD 5.91, 95% CI 4.63 to 7.18, p<0.001)"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.