PBL+CBL与LBL在临床医学生外科实习教学中的效果系统评价

目的 系统评价以问题为基础的学习（problem-based learning，PBL）+以案例为基础的学习（case-based learning，CBL）与传统授课（lecture-based learning，LBL）在中国临床医学生外科实习教学中的效果。方法 计算机检索PubMed、The Cochrane Library、Embase、CNKI、VIP、万方数据库中PBL+CBL教学与LBL教学在中国医学生外科实习中随机对照研究，检索时间从建库至2019年6月。采用RevMan 5.2软件进行数据分析。结果 纳入17篇随机对照试验，共计1 161名学生，其中PBL+CBL组581名，LBL组580名。Meta 分析结果显示：PBL+CBL组的学生理论成绩高于对照组（MD=6.15，95%CI=4.14~8.15，P<0.001），技能操作成绩高于对照组（MD=7.67，95%CI=3.66~11.69，P<0.001），病例分析成绩高于对照组（MD=6.06，95%CI=2.89~9.23，P=0.000 2），并且PBL+CBL组学生对教学效果表示满意的高于LBL组（OR=2.98，95%CI=1.88~4.73，P<0.001）。结论 PBL＋CBL教学在临床医学生外科实习教学中效果优于LBL教学。受纳入研究数量及质量的影响，上述结论需要更多、更高质量的研究予以验证。

A systematic evaluation of teaching effect of PBL+CBL versus LBL in medical students' surgical internships

Objective To systematically evaluate the teaching effect of problem-based learning (PBL) plus case-based learning (CBL) versus lecture-based learning (LBL) in surgical internships in Chinese medical students.Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and WanFang Data for randomized controlled studies evaluating PBL+CBL versus LBL in surgical internships in Chinese medical students. The retrieval time was from database establishment to June 2019. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software.Results Seventeen randomized controlled trials were included, involving a total of 1161 students, including 581 in the PBL+CBL group and 580 in the LBL group. Meta-analysis results showed that the PBL+CBL group had significantly higher scores of theory examination mean difference (MD)=6.15, 95%CI=4.14-8.15, P<0.001], skill examination (MD=7.67, 95%CI=3.66-11.69, P<0.001), and case analysis (MD=6.06, 95%CI=2.89-9.23, P=0.000 2) compared with the control group. The PBL+CBL group had a significantly higher percentage of satisfaction with the teaching results than the LBL group odds ratio(OR)=2.98, 95%CI=1.88-4.73, P<0.001].Conclusion PBL+CBL is superior to LBL in medical students'' surgical internships, which needs verification by more high-quality studies due to limitations in the number and quality of the included studies.