School of Basic Medical Science, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Oct 1;100(39):e27402. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027402.
Problem-based learning (PBL) was widely adopted in medical cell biology education for Chinese student; however, there was no systematic analysis to prove PBL was much more effective than lecture-based learning (LBL). Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of PBL on cell biology curriculum compared with LBL.
We systematically searched the publications related to PBL teaching approach in cell biology curriculum for medical education from databases until to February 2021. Pooled standard mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios with their 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the effectiveness of PBL and the satisfaction of students to PBL compared to LBL in meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed by statistical I2 of heterogeneity. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to analyze the source of heterogeneity. Funnel plots and Egger tests were performed to assess publication bias.
After initial searching and selection, 9 studies were included for meta-analysis. All of these 9 studies were in high quality. The SMDs (95% confidence intervals) of total examination scores and comprehensive examination scores between PBL and LBL curriculum in cell biology teaching was calculated to be 0.89 (0.52, 1.26) and 0.53 (0.29, 0.78). Meanwhile, the risk ratios of the satisfaction of PBL vs LBL were calculated to be 1.18 (0.96, 1.46). However, there was a heterogeneity among the pooled SMDs of 10 studies with I2 = 89.7%, P < .001. The factors including the different teachers, the similar or same examination paper and over 100 student numbers among PBL and LBL groups raised the heterogeneity in the pooled SMDs. There is no publication bias in these 10 publications after Egger and Begg test.
The result indicated PBL was better than LBL in improvement of examination scores and comprehensive examination scores in cell biology curriculum to some extent. However, the satisfaction of students to PBL and LBL had no difference. The factors, including the different teachers, the similar or same examination papers and over 100 student numbers, affected the effectiveness of PBL and raised the heterogeneity of the pooled SMDs.
以问题为基础的学习（PBL）在医学细胞生物学教育中被广泛应用于中国学生；然而，没有系统的分析来证明 PBL 比基于讲座的学习（LBL）更有效。我们的目的是评估 PBL 在细胞生物学课程中的有效性，与 LBL 进行比较。
我们从数据库中系统地搜索了与医学教育细胞生物学课程中的 PBL 教学方法相关的出版物，直到 2021 年 2 月。使用合并后的标准均数差值（SMD）和风险比及其 95%置信区间来评估 PBL 的有效性和学生对 PBL 的满意度与 LBL 相比进行荟萃分析。使用异质性统计 I2 评估纳入研究的异质性。进行元回归和亚组分析以分析异质性的来源。使用漏斗图和 Egger 检验评估发表偏倚。
经过初步搜索和选择，有 9 项研究纳入荟萃分析。所有这 9 项研究都是高质量的。在细胞生物学教学中，PBL 和 LBL 课程的总考试成绩和综合考试成绩的 SMD（95%置信区间）分别计算为 0.89（0.52，1.26）和 0.53（0.29，0.78）。同时，PBL 与 LBL 相比的满意度的风险比计算为 1.18（0.96，1.46）。然而，10 项研究的合并 SMD 存在高度异质性，I2=89.7%，P<.001。在 PBL 和 LBL 组之间存在不同的教师、相似或相同的试卷和超过 100 名学生等因素，导致了合并 SMD 中的异质性。在 Egger 和 Begg 检验后，这 10 项出版物没有发表偏倚。
结果表明，在一定程度上，PBL 比 LBL 更能提高细胞生物学课程的考试成绩和综合考试成绩。然而，学生对 PBL 和 LBL 的满意度没有差异。包括不同教师、相似或相同试卷以及超过 100 名学生人数在内的因素影响了 PBL 的有效性，并增加了合并 SMD 的异质性。
