Table 1. Summary of various studies regarding problem-based learning.
PBL = problem-based learning; TBL = team-based learning; E-PBL = electronic problem-based learning; CKD = chronic kidney disease; CD = Crohn's disease; MCQ = multiple choice question; UTI = urinary tract infection; SD = standard deviation.
| S. No. | Study ID | Country | Experimental (PBL/TBL) | Control (Traditional learning) | P-value |
| 1 | Alaagib et al. (2018) [14] | Sudan | Physiology: 7.95 ± 1.65/10 (Mean ± SD/ Total marks) (N = 101) | Physiology: 9.68 ± 2.59/10 (Mean ± SD/Total marks) (N = 146) | p < 0.001 |
| Respiratory: 9.68 ± 2.59/20 (Mean ± SD/Total marks) (N =146) | Respiratory: 8.60 ± 4.02/10 (N = 146) (Mean ± SD/Total marks) | p = 0.006 | |||
| 2 | Robson et al. (2009) [13] | United Kingdom | Mean score improvement in extended matching questions (EMQs) (E-PBL) (N = total students) | Not applicable | |
| CKD = 0.009 (N = 23) | p = 0.998 | ||||
| CD = 20.6 (N = 17) | p = 0.014 | ||||
| UTI = 12 (N = 18) | p = 0.062 | ||||
| 3 | Smith et al. (2006) [15] | United States | Technical examination skills: (n = total students) Collaborative discovery (CD) = 10% (CI 4% to 17%) (n = 24) | Demonstration and practice (DP) = 12% (CI 6% to 19%) (n = 25) | p = 0.001 |
| Identifying key findings: CD = 5% (CI 2% to 9%) | Identifying key findings: DP = not significant | p = 0.004 | |||
| 4 | Said et al. (2020) [16] | United States | Post session score = 9.71 ± 2.31 (Mean ± SD) | Pre-session score = 5.70 ± 1.88 (Mean ± SD) | p < 0.001 |
| 5. | Weidenbusch et al. (2019) [17] | Germany | Live case discussion (N = 30) (Mean ± SD) | Paper cases (N = 33) (Mean ± SD) | |
| Pre-test = 5.34 ± 1.92 | |||||
| Post-test = 14.10 ± 3.32 | Pre-test = 5.76 ± 2.24 | ||||
| Delayed knowledge application post-test = 3.36 ± 3.23 | |||||
| Subjective learning outcome = 4.20 ± 0.63 | Post-test = 8.50 ± 2.44 | ||||
| Video-based discussion (N = 27) (Mean ± SD) | |||||
| Pre-test = 4.76 ± 1.90 | Delayed knowledge application post-test = 7.89 ± 2.41 | ||||
| Post-test = 11.69 ± 3.34 | |||||
| Delayed knowledge application post-test = 11.84 ± 2.92 | Subjective learning outcome = 3.00 ± 0.99 (N = 31) | ||||
| Subjective learning outcome = 3.18 ± 1.24 | |||||
| 6 | Krupat et al. (2016) [18] | United States | Standardized final exam scores (PBL students): 47.13 | Standardized final exam scores: 53.50 | p = 0.36 |
| Mean final exam score: students with prior scores below the median of 64 = 26.88 | Mean final exam score: students with prior scores below the median of 64 = 41.63 | p = 0.05 | |||
| 7 | Raupach et al. (2009) [19] | Germany | Final key feature examination mean score, (Mean ± SD): 31.9 ± 7.2 out of 55 points | Final key feature examination mean score (Mean ± SD): 31.7 ± 7.5 out of 55 points | p = 0.843 |
| Clinical case of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTPH): T = 2.5 ± 1 | Clinical case of CTPH: C = 2.0 ± 1.2 | p = 0.003 | |||
| Summative MCQs: T = 50.3 ± 6.8 | Summative MCQs: C = 50.3 ± 6.5 | p = 0.973 | |||
| 8 | Kelly et al. (2005) [20] | United States | PBL – engaged with each other = 74% | Lecture – engaged with each other = 9% | |
| Engaged with teacher = 11% | Engaged with teacher = 58% | ||||
| Self-engaged (reading/writing/not visibly interacting with others) = 15% | Self-engaged (reading/writing/not visibly interacting with others) = 33% | ||||
| 9 | Preeti et al. (2013) [10] | India | Mean marks obtained (N = 72) (Full marks: 20) | ||
| Pre-test score: 10.04 | |||||
| Post-test score: 14.89 |