What question did this study set out to answer?

May 9, 2026Frontiers in Medicine0 citationsOpen Access

The effectiveness of mind mapping versus lecture-based learning in medical education of China’s standardized residency training: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Key Points

This study investigates the effectiveness of mind mapping versus lecture-based learning in medical education for China’s standardized residency training.
Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines.
Identified 52 randomized controlled studies with 3,312 participants from multiple databases.
Performed statistical analyses using R 4.1.1 software.
Mind mapping group had significantly higher examination scores in theoretical knowledge (SMD = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.16–1.74).
Residents reported greater satisfaction and improvements in problem-solving ability and clinical skills with mind mapping.
Overall certainty of evidence was very low due to high heterogeneity and lack of blinding in studies.

Abstract

Background Mind mapping has been widely used as an intervention in medical education of China’s standardized residents training (SRT) program. Our study aims to investigate the effectiveness of mind mapping compared with lecture-based learning (LBL) in China’s SRT. Methods A PRISMA guideline based systemic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251244861) was performed. We searched the publications in PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database and Wanfang database up to December 24, 2025 to identify randomized controlled studies with outcomes measure from mind mapping and LBL. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. All the statistical analyses were performed by R 4.1.1 software. Results A total of 52 studies with 3,312 participants (Mind mapping group = 1,698, LBL group = 1,614) were selected in our meta-analysis. These studies published from 2017 to 2025. Meta-analysis identified significantly higher examination scores in mind mapping group compared to LBL group in theoretical knowledge (SMD = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.16–1.74), case analysis (SMD = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95–1.72), and procedural skill (SMD = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.23–2.13). Questionnaire surveys results showed that residents were more satisfied with the mind mapping and had improvements in level of theoretical knowledge, learning motivation, problem-solving ability, proficiency in literature retrieval, clinical skills, and teamwork. There were 98% of the included studies lacked allocation concealment and blinding, and high heterogeneity (I 2 80%) was present in 11 out of 12 meta-analyses using continuous data. GRADE assessment showed that the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Conclusion Our meta-analysis indicates that mind mapping is potentially more effective than LBL in medical education of China’s SRT system. Given the limitations of substantial heterogeneity and very low certainty evidence, our findings are insufficient for strong practice recommendations. Further well-designed studies are required to confirm our findings. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251244861 .

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper