Abstract
Key Questions
1. What are the benefits of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in orthopaedics education?
PBL significantly improves knowledge scores, procedural skill scores, and clinical skill scores compared to traditional teaching methods.
2. How do students perceive PBL compared to traditional teaching?
Students report higher interest and satisfaction levels in PBL but also experience greater study pressure and less study time.
3. What is the evidence base for the effectiveness of PBL in orthopaedics?
Based on 51 randomized controlled trials involving 4268 participants, PBL shows consistent advantages across multiple educational metrics.
4. What areas require further research in PBL?
Future studies should use multicentre, double-blind, large-sample RCTs to verify the findings and address limitations of existing research.
Background
Background
Currently, problem-based learning (PBL) has been widely used in many disciplines, but no systematic review has explored the advantages and disadvantages of PBL in orthopaedics education.
Methods
Methods
We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Chongqing VIP Database (VIP), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases up to April 2023 to identify relevant studies. Relevant studies were identified by using specific eligibility criteria, and data were extracted.
Results
Results
A total of 51 randomized controlled trials with 4268 patients were included. Compared with traditional education, PBL teaching yielded significantly higher knowledge scores (SMD=1.10, 95% CI: 0.78~1.41, P<0.00001), procedural skill scores and clinical skill scores than traditional teaching (SMD=2.07, 95% CI: 1.61~2.53, P<0.00001; SMD=1.20, 95% CI: 0.88~1.52, P<0.00001). Moreover, the total scores were higher in the PBL teaching group than in the traditional teaching group (MD=5.69, 95% CI: 5.11~6.26, P<0.00001). Students also expressed higher levels of interest and satisfaction in the PBL teaching group than in the traditional teaching group (OR=4.70, 95% CI: 3.20~6.93, P<0.00001; OR=5.43, 95% CI: 3.83~7.69, P<0.00001). However, there was less learning time and higher levels of learning pressure in the PBL teaching group (OR=0.12, 95% CI: 0.06~0.24, P<0.00001; OR=5.95, 95% CI: 3.16~11.23, P<0.00001).
Conclusion
Conclusion
Current evidence indicates that PBL teaching can increase knowledge scores, procedural skill scores, and clinical skill scores. Students have higher levels of interest in teaching and higher levels of teaching satisfaction in the PBL group. However, students can feel higher levels of study pressure and experience less study time. The findings of the current study need to be further verified in multicentre, double-blind and large-sample RCTs.
