AI-Assisted Structured Guidance for Narrative Review Writing
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: AI-Assisted Structured Guidance, Free AI Use.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: AI-Assisted Academic Writing, Medical Education, Narrative Review Writing. Basic parameters: from 18 years · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- China
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Official title
Effect of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Structured Guidance on the Quality of Narrative Literature Reviews Among Medical Postgraduate Students: A Randomized Controlled Educational Study
Overview
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.
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.
Interventions
- Behavioral AI-Assisted Structured Guidance
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. - Behavioral Free AI Use
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.
Primary outcome measures
- Final SANRA Total Score [Time frame: Week 2]
Secondary outcome measures (8)
- SANRA Item 1 Score: Importance of the Article [Time frame: Week 2]
- SANRA Item 2 Score: Aims or Questions [Time frame: Week 2]
- SANRA Item 3 Score: Literature Search Description [Time frame: Week 2]
- SANRA Item 4 Score: Referencing [Time frame: Week 2]
- SANRA Item 5 Score: Scientific Reasoning [Time frame: Week 2]
- SANRA Item 6 Score: Data and Content Presentation [Time frame: Week 2]
- Change From Baseline in Multiple-Source Academic Writing Self-Efficacy Score [Time frame: Baseline and Week 2]
- Reference Authenticity Error Rate [Time frame: Week 2]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- Master's students enrolled in the Academic Standards and Thesis Writing course.
- Willing to participate in this study, able to understand the study procedures and randomization arrangement, and able to provide written informed consent.
- Able to complete literature searching, use AI tools, and complete online questionnaires.
Exclusion criteria
- 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.
- Students who have participated in pilot testing, intervention material development, assessment training, or data processing related to this study.
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: Yes
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Model
- Parallel assignment
- Masking
- Single blind
- Primary purpose
- Other
Study locations
China · 1 center
- Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University — Guangzhou
Publications
- Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Mar 26;4:5. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8. eCollection 2019. PMID 30962953
Identifiers
NCT: NCT07618819 · IIT2026064