Primary study · included by 1 review

Paul 2019

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

Innovative Didactic Learning Formats: Have They Improved Dental Education? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Paul 2019 · Table 1; Table 2; Figures 2-3

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Knowledge acquisition (post-test scores, normalized to 0-100) Any innovative teaching format vs Traditional teaching methods (lecture, large-group teaching) · Post-test shortly after the intervention	MD 10.07 [6.69, 13.44]	20 studies · 1743 participants	GRADE not reported
Knowledge acquisition (post-test scores, normalized to 0-100) Synchronous blended learning (whole-class, e.g. flipped classroom) vs Traditional teaching methods (lecture, large-group teaching) · Post-test shortly after the intervention	MD 16.59 [9.03, 24.15]	8 studies · 670 participants	GRADE not reported
Knowledge acquisition (post-test scores, normalized to 0-100) Any innovative teaching format vs Traditional teaching methods (lecture, large-group teaching) · Post-test shortly after the intervention	MD 9.82 [6.95, 12.69]	23 studies · 2095 participants	GRADE not reported

1 including review in total.