Whether case-based teaching combined with the flipped classroom is more valuable than traditional lecture-based teaching methods in clinical medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

保存先:
書誌詳細
出版年:BMC Medical Education vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-13
第一著者: Xu-Ying, Shi
その他の著者: Bing-Rui Lu, Yin, Qing, Qiu-Wen, Wang, Yong-Qi, Fang, Zhi-Gang Sun
出版事項:
Springer Nature B.V.
主題:
オンライン・アクセス:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
タグ: タグ追加
タグなし, このレコードへの初めてのタグを付けませんか!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3227642865
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 1472-6920 
024 7 |a 10.1186/s12909-025-07465-4  |2 doi 
035 |a 3227642865 
045 2 |b d20250101  |b d20251231 
084 |a 58506  |2 nlm 
100 1 |a Xu-Ying, Shi 
245 1 |a Whether case-based teaching combined with the flipped classroom is more valuable than traditional lecture-based teaching methods in clinical medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis 
260 |b Springer Nature B.V.  |c 2025 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a BackgroundAn increasing body of evidence suggests that both flipped classroom and case-based teaching models outperform traditional teaching methods in clinical medical education. Both teaching methods share several advantages, including a student-centered approach, enhanced understanding and mastery of knowledge, the development of comprehensive skills, and an emphasis on interactive communication. Therefore, a teaching model that integrates both methods may achieve similar or even better educational outcomes. Although previous studies have demonstrated this, they are generally limited by small sample sizes and inconsistent evaluation criteria for teaching effectiveness. This study aims to provide a high-quality assessment of this teaching method through meta-analysis and systematic review, further confirming its value in the field of clinical medical education.MethodsThis study employed a meta-analysis to systematically and quantitatively compare the educational impact of a teaching model combining flipped classroom and case-based learning (Flipped Classroom Case Learning, FCCL) with traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) for clinical medical students. An extensive literature search was conducted to identify studies on the application of FCCL and LBL in clinical medical education, covering the period from inception to November 21, 2024. Databases searched included the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed. A total of 12 studies were included, comprising 1,857 clinical medical students or residents. The quality of each included study was assessed using RevMan (Version 5.4). The primary outcome measures were students' theoretical scores and clinical analytical skills. The extracted data were subjected to meta-analysis using Stata 18.0 software.ResultsA total of 1,857 participants from 12 studies were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the FCCL group demonstrated significantly superior theoretical scores (Cohen’s d = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.17 to 1.04, P = 0.01) and clinical analysis skills (Cohen’s d = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.86 to 2.19, P = 0.00) compared to the LBL group. The Cohen's d for clinical analytical skills was 1.53 (> 0.8), indicating a large effect size between the two groups, suggesting a significant difference between the FCCL and LBL groups in improving students' clinical analytical skills. In contrast, the Cohen's d for theoretical scores was 0.60(approximately 0.5), indicating a moderate effect size, suggesting a moderate difference between the FCCL and LBL groups in improving students' theoretical knowledge. Subgroup analyses indicated that Chinese students in the FCCL group exhibited better theoretical performance (SMD = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.77, P = 0.01; heterogeneity, P = 0.00) and clinical analysis skills (SMD = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.06 to 4.02, P = 0.00; heterogeneity, P = 0.00) compared to their LBL counterparts. Among students from Western countries, those in the FCCL group outperformed the LBL group in clinical analysis skills (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.63, P = 0.00; heterogeneity, P = 0.21). However, no significant difference in theoretical scores was observed between the two teaching methods in this subgroup (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.48, P = 0.60; heterogeneity, P = 0.00).ConclusionThe present study demonstrates that FCCL is more effective than LBL in enhancing clinical medical students' theoretical scores and clinical analysis skills. These findings were generally consistent across different nationalities of the study populations, with the exception of students from Western countries, where no statistically significant difference was observed in theoretical scores between the two instructional methods. However, due to the inevitable methodological differences among the included studies, heterogeneity is difficult to eliminate, and the overall sample size is relatively small. Therefore, further randomized controlled trials with rigorous experimental designs are needed to confirm these conclusions. 
653 |a Students 
653 |a Medical education 
653 |a Collaboration 
653 |a Teaching methods 
653 |a Clinical medicine 
653 |a Inquiry method 
653 |a Teachers 
653 |a Bias 
653 |a Medicine 
653 |a Active learning 
653 |a Flipped classroom 
653 |a Clinical trials 
653 |a Meta-analysis 
653 |a Educational Practices 
653 |a Instructional Innovation 
653 |a Graduate Students 
653 |a Inferences 
653 |a Lecture Method 
653 |a Measurement Techniques 
653 |a Grading 
653 |a Risk Assessment 
653 |a Group Activities 
653 |a Meta Analysis 
653 |a Databases 
653 |a Search Strategies 
653 |a Randomized Controlled Trials 
653 |a Information Seeking 
653 |a Effect Size 
653 |a Statistical Analysis 
653 |a Statistical Inference 
653 |a Outcomes of Education 
653 |a Statistical Data 
653 |a Database Management Systems 
653 |a Course Content 
653 |a Learner Engagement 
700 1 |a Bing-Rui Lu 
700 1 |a Yin, Qing 
700 1 |a Qiu-Wen, Wang 
700 1 |a Yong-Qi, Fang 
700 1 |a Zhi-Gang Sun 
773 0 |t BMC Medical Education  |g vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-13 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Healthcare Administration Database 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3227642865/abstract/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3227642865/fulltext/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3227642865/fulltextPDF/embedded/7BTGNMKEMPT1V9Z2?source=fedsrch