AI-Assisted Structured Guidance for Narrative Review Writing

Effect of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Structured Guidance on the Quality of Narrative Literature Reviews Among Medical Postgraduate Students: A Randomized Controlled Educational Study

This randomized, parallel-group, assessor-blinded educational study will evaluate whether one session of AI-assisted structured guidance improves the quality of narrative literature reviews written by medical postgraduate students. A total of 102 students enrolled in an academic writing course will be randomly assigned to either an AI-assisted structured guidance group or a free AI use group. Both groups may use AI tools under academic integrity requirements and will complete a narrative literature review according to the same course requirements. The guidance group will receive one structured guidance session approximately two weeks before final submission. The session will be based on the six dimensions of the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA). The primary outcome is the final SANRA total score of the submitted narrative literature review.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Generative artificial intelligence is increasingly used by medical students and postgraduate trainees for literature searching, summarization, outlining, and academic writing. However, free use of AI may be associated with inaccurate information, unsupported statements, fabricated references, and inadequate academic judgment. This study is designed to evaluate whether structured guidance can improve the quality and academic integrity of AI-assisted narrative review writing.

Participants will be medical postgraduate students enrolled in an academic writing course. After informed consent and baseline data collection, participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an AI-assisted structured guidance group or a free AI use group. Both groups will complete a narrative literature review of approximately 2,000 Chinese characters according to the same course requirements and may use AI tools under academic integrity requirements.

Participants in the AI-assisted structured guidance group will receive one structured guidance session approximately two weeks before final submission. The session will be based on the six SANRA dimensions: explanation of the importance of the article, statement of aims or questions, description of the literature search, reference support for key statements, scientific reasoning, and appropriate presentation of data and content. The instructor will provide directional and methodological feedback but will not directly write or edit the students' text line by line. Participants in the free AI use group will complete the review according to the same course requirements without the structured guidance session.

After submission, all narrative reviews will be anonymized and assessed by independent outcome assessors blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome is the final SANRA total score. Secondary outcomes include SANRA item scores, multiple-source academic writing self-efficacy, and reference authenticity error rate.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

102

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

    • Guangdong
      • Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, 510060
        • Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Master's students enrolled in the Academic Standards and Thesis Writing course.
  2. Willing to participate in this study, able to understand the study procedures and randomization arrangement, and able to provide written informed consent.
  3. Able to complete literature searching, use AI tools, and complete online questionnaires.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Students who have confirmed withdrawal from the course, suspension of study, long-term leave, or other known objective reasons that prevent participation in subsequent major teaching activities and study procedures.
  2. Students who have participated in pilot testing, intervention material development, assessment training, or data processing related to this study.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: AI-Assisted Structured Guidance Group
Participants in this group will complete a narrative literature review according to the same course requirements as the control group. They may use AI tools under academic integrity requirements and will additionally receive one structured guidance session approximately two weeks before final submission.
A single structured guidance session delivered approximately two weeks before final submission. The session is based on the six SANRA dimensions and provides directional and methodological feedback on narrative review writing and appropriate AI use, without direct writing or line-by-line editing of students' text.
Participants may use AI tools freely under academic integrity requirements while completing the narrative literature review. Students are responsible for verifying AI-generated content, medical facts, and reference authenticity.
Active Comparator: Free AI Use Group
Participants in this group will complete a narrative literature review according to the same course requirements and may use AI tools under academic integrity requirements. They will not receive the structured guidance session during the study period.
Participants may use AI tools freely under academic integrity requirements while completing the narrative literature review. Students are responsible for verifying AI-generated content, medical facts, and reference authenticity.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Final SANRA Total Score
Time Frame: Week 2
The quality of the final narrative literature review will be assessed using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA). The SANRA total score ranges from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating better quality of the narrative review.The outcome will be assessed based on the narrative literature review submitted at Week 2.
Week 2

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
SANRA Item 1 Score: Importance of the Article
Time Frame: Week 2
This outcome assesses SANRA item 1, which evaluates whether the importance of the narrative review article is adequately explained. The item score ranges from 0 to 2, with higher scores indicating better reporting.The outcome will be assessed based on the narrative literature review submitted at Week 2.
Week 2
SANRA Item 2 Score: Aims or Questions
Time Frame: Week 2
This outcome assesses SANRA item 3, which evaluates whether the literature search process is described. The item score ranges from 0 to 2, with higher scores indicating better reporting.The outcome will be assessed based on the narrative literature review submitted at Week 2.
Week 2
SANRA Item 3 Score: Literature Search Description
Time Frame: Week 2
This outcome assesses SANRA item 3, which evaluates whether the literature search process is described. The item score ranges from 0 to 2, with higher scores indicating better reporting.The outcome will be assessed based on the narrative literature review submitted at Week 2.
Week 2
SANRA Item 4 Score: Referencing
Time Frame: Week 2
At final submission of the narrative literature review; assessment completed within 4 weeks after final submission.The outcome will be assessed based on the narrative literature review submitted at Week 2.
Week 2
SANRA Item 5 Score: Scientific Reasoning
Time Frame: Week 2
This outcome assesses SANRA item 5, which evaluates whether the scientific reasoning is based on appropriate evidence. The item score ranges from 0 to 2, with higher scores indicating better scientific reasoning.The outcome will be assessed based on the narrative literature review submitted at Week 2.
Week 2
SANRA Item 6 Score: Data and Content Presentation
Time Frame: Week 2
This outcome assesses SANRA item 6, which evaluates whether data and content are presented appropriately. The item score ranges from 0 to 2, with higher scores indicating better presentation.The outcome will be assessed based on the narrative literature review submitted at Week 2.
Week 2
Change From Baseline in Multiple-Source Academic Writing Self-Efficacy Score
Time Frame: Baseline and Week 2
Multiple-source academic writing self-efficacy will be assessed using an adapted 8-item Multiple-Source Academic Writing Self-Efficacy Scale. The change from baseline to final submission will be analyzed. Higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy in integrating multiple sources for academic writing.
Baseline and Week 2
Reference Authenticity Error Rate
Time Frame: Week 2
The proportion of references with authenticity errors will be calculated for each submitted narrative literature review. References will be verified using available bibliographic information such as DOI, PMID, title, authors, PubMed, CrossRef, Web of Science, Google Scholar, journal websites, or publisher websites. A higher error rate indicates poorer reference authenticity.The outcome will be assessed based on the narrative literature review submitted at Week 2.
Week 2

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

June 1, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

August 1, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

September 1, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 25, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 25, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

June 1, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

June 1, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 25, 2026

Last Verified

May 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

IPD Plan Description

Individual participant data will not be shared because the study involves students' coursework, questionnaires, AI use declarations, and writing-related educational data. These data may contain potentially identifiable information even after de-identification. Only aggregated results will be reported in publications or academic presentations.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Medical Education

Clinical Trials on AI-Assisted Structured Guidance

Subscribe