ArticleBMC medical education2026
Comparative effectiveness of orthopedic teaching methods in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn medical education, scores of theoretical knowledge examinations represent the quantitative reflection of theoretical mastery; results of practical skills tests are the evaluative conclusions of hands-on operational capabilities; learning interest refers to the positive inclination during learning; clinical thinking ability denotes the logical thinking capacity in diagnosis and treatment; communication and expression skills stand for the ability to convey information; and autonomous learning ability is the capacity for proactive learning. These competencies are particularly crucial for physicians. This study aims to systematically evaluate the application effects of different educational methods in undergraduate and postgraduate orthopedic education in China through the aforementioned aspects.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, the Weipu database, and the Wanfang database to collect studies up to December 2, 2024. These studies evaluated the performance of various teaching methods in undergraduate and graduate orthopedic education in China. Under the Bayesian framework, R software (version 4.2.1) was used to call JAGS software (version 4.3.1) for statistical analysis using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCSC) method for direct and indirect comparisons. The GRADE method was employed to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome indicator.
resultsA total of 50 studies were included for the meta-analysis. 3D-PBL (Three Dimensional-Problem Based Learning) is the best orthopedic teaching model in China. It demonstrated significant improvements in theoretical assessment scores, skill assessment scores, learning interest, clinical thinking, communication skills, and self-directed learning.
conclusionsNetwork meta-analysis showed that among various teaching methods applied in undergraduate and postgraduate orthopedic education in China, three-dimensional problem-based learning (3D-PBL ) outperforms other methods in improving teaching effectiveness, effectively enhancing the quality of orthopedic education in theoretical knowledge, clinical practice, and other aspects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.