Claims

The pooled TBL effect on examination scores is robust to leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and model choice, and publication bias was not detected

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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? Deleting any single study left the significant TBL effect unchanged (SMD range 2.26–2.67), and a fixed-effects model yielded a consistent significant effect (SMD = 1.63). → Chen Minjian 2018 q3 i? Begg's test did not reveal funnel plot asymmetry (P = 0.059), making publication bias unlikely. → Chen Minjian 2018

Evidence

Chen Minjian 2018

Chen Minjian, Ni Chunhui, Hu Yanhui, Wang Meilin, Liu Lu, Ji Xiaoming, Chu Haiyan, Wu Wei, Lu Chuncheng, Wang Shouyu, Wang Shoulin, Zhao Liping, Li Zhong, Zhu Huijuan, Wang Jianming, Xia Yankai, Wang Xinru. (2018). Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of team-based learning on medical education in China. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1179-1

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Sensitivity analysis in which each of the 13 studies was deleted in turn; the significant TBL effect was unchanged (SMD 2.26–2.67). A fixed-effects model also gave a significant effect (SMD = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.51–1.76), and Begg's test gave P = 0.059.

"When any research was removed from the model, the significant results of TBL effect on the students’ examination scores were unchanged in these models (SMD: 2.26–2.67, 95% CI: 1.32–3.67, n = 13)"

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.