Claims

TBL alone and TBL combined with other methods both outperform LBL, with no significant difference between the two TBL formats

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? Both TBL-alone and blended-TBL subgroups significantly outperformed LBL, and no significant difference was detected between the subgroups. → Fu Jie 2026

Evidence

Fu Jie 2026

Fu Jie, Chen Xiu, Li Jinglun, Peng Lilei. (2026). TBL alone or combined with other teaching methods for neurology education in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09468-1

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup analysis of theoretical knowledge scores by intervention method (TBL alone vs. TBL combined with other methods); subgroup difference not significant (p = 0.30). For practical skills the pattern was similar (SMD = 2.09 vs. SMD = 1.28, p = 0.12). No effect size for the between-subgroup difference is printed.

"The pooled effect size was SMD = 1.35 (95% CI: 0.71 to 1.99) for TBL alone subgroup and SMD = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.35) for blended TBL subgroup, and no significant difference was detected between the subgroups (p = 0.30)."

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.