AI-Assisted Academic WritingNCT07618819
AI-Assisted Structured Guidance for Narrative Review Writing
A study testing AI-Assisted Structured Guidance and Free AI Use in people with AI-Assisted Academic Writing and Medical Education, run by Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- AI-Assisted Academic Writing, Medical Education, Narrative Review Writing
- What is being tested?
- AI-Assisted Structured Guidance and Free AI Use
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 102 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- Jun 2026to Sep 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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.
Who cannot join
- 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.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
China1 site
Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University
Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510060
About this study
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
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.
Read the 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.
- Being tested
- AI-Assisted Structured Guidance, Free AI Use
- Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence, Medical Education, Postgraduate Education, Narrative Literature Review, Academic Writing, SANRA
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
AI-Assisted Structured GuidanceBehavioural
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.
Free AI UseBehavioural
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| AI-Assisted Structured Guidance Group | Experimental | 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. Receives: Behavioral: AI-Assisted Structured Guidance; Behavioral: Free AI Use |
| Free AI Use Group | Active comparator | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Free AI Use |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Final SANRA Total Score
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.
Measured: Week 2
Secondary outcomes (8)
SANRA Item 1 Score: Importance of the Article
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.
Measured: Week 2
SANRA Item 2 Score: Aims or Questions
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.
Measured: Week 2
SANRA Item 3 Score: Literature Search Description
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.
Measured: Week 2
SANRA Item 4 Score: Referencing
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.
Measured: Week 2
SANRA Item 5 Score: Scientific Reasoning
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.
Measured: Week 2
SANRA Item 6 Score: Data and Content Presentation
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.
Measured: Week 2
Change From Baseline in Multiple-Source Academic Writing Self-Efficacy Score
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.
Measured: Baseline and Week 2
Reference Authenticity Error Rate
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.
Measured: Week 2
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Jun 2026
- Study startJun 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completionAug 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionSep 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AI-Assisted Academic WritingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the AI-assisted structured guidance group or the free AI use group. Both groups will complete a narrative literature review according to the same course requirements. The intervention group will receive one AI-assisted structured guidance session approximately two weeks before final submission, while the control group will not receive the structured guidance session.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 102 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07618819
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IIT2026064
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 25 May 2026
- Last updated
- 1 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: 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.
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.
PubMed 30962953
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- 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
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07618819
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IIT2026064
- Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence, Medical Education, Postgraduate Education, Narrative Literature Review, Academic Writing, SANRA
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 102 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Sep 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 1 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the AI-assisted structured guidance group or the free AI use group. Both groups will complete a narrative literature review according to the same course requirements. The intervention group will receive one AI-assisted structured guidance session approximately two weeks before final submission, while the control group will not receive the structured guidance session.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| AI-Assisted Structured Guidance Group | Experimental | Behavioral: AI-Assisted Structured Guidance, Behavioral: Free AI UseParticipants 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. |
| Free AI Use Group | Active comparator | Behavioral: Free AI UseParticipants 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| AI-Assisted Structured GuidanceA 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. | Behavioural | AI-Assisted Structured Guidance Group |
| Free AI UseParticipants 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. | Behavioural | AI-Assisted Structured Guidance Group, Free AI Use Group |
Primary outcome
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.
8 secondary outcomes
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
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Jun 2026.
- Results publication: PubMed 30962953Baethge 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. 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.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing AI-Assisted Structured Guidance and Free AI Use in people with AI-Assisted Academic Writing and Medical Education, run by Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Guangming Jin (+86-13560035613, jinguangming@gzzoc.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Final SANRA Total Score (time frame: Week 2). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07618819, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Jun 2026.