The Effectiveness of the Problem-Based Learning Teaching Model for Use in Introductory Chinese Undergraduate Medical Courses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yanqi Zhang,
Liang Zhou,
Xiaoyu Liu,
Ling Liu,
Yazhou Wu,
Zengwei Zhao,
Dali Yi and
Dong Yi
PLOS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, issue 3, 1-24
Abstract:
Background: Although the problem-based learning (PBL) emerged in 1969 and was soon widely applied internationally, the rapid development in China only occurred in the last 10 years. This study aims to compare the effect of PBL and lecture-based learning (LBL) on student course examination results for introductory Chinese undergraduate medical courses. Methods: Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trial studies on PBL use in Chinese undergraduate medical education were retrieved through PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and VIP China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP-CSTJ) with publication dates from 1st January 1966 till 31 August 2014. The pass rate, excellence rate and examination scores of course examination were collected. Methodological quality was evaluated based on the modified Jadad scale. The I-square statistic and Chi-square test of heterogeneity were used to assess the statistical heterogeneity. Overall RRs or SMDs with their 95% CIs were calculated in meta-analysis. Meta-regression and subgroup meta-analyses were also performed based on comparators and other confounding factors. Funnel plots and Egger’s tests were performed to assess degrees of publication bias. Results: The meta-analysis included 31studies and 4,699 subjects. Fourteen studies were of high quality with modified Jadad scores of 4 to 6, and 17 studies were of low quality with scores of 1 to 3. Relative to the LBL model, the PBL model yielded higher course examination pass rates [RR = 1.09, 95%CI (1.03, 1.17)], excellence rates [RR = 1.66, 95%CI (1.33, 2.06)] and examination scores [SMD = 0.82, 95%CI (0.63, 1.01)]. The meta-regression results show that course type was the significant confounding factor that caused heterogeneity in the examination-score meta-analysis (t = 0.410, P
Date: 2015
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)
Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120884 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 20884&type=printable (application/pdf)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0120884
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120884
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().