FeedbackNCT07659145
Simulation-based Training for Ultrasound-guided Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block
A study testing Asynchronous distance feedback and Synchronous direct feedback in people with Feedback, run by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile at 1 site in Chile.
Trial summary
The goal of this study is to evaluate whether remote asynchronous feedback is non-inferior to direct synchronous feedback during simulation-based training for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block performance. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Feedback
- What is being tested?
- Asynchronous distance feedback and Synchronous direct feedback
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChile
- Study dates
- 28 May 2026to 27 Mar 2027
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Medicine students
Who cannot join
- No exclusion Criteria
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Chile1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Santiago, Santiago Metropolitan, 7700950
Marcia A Corvetto, Associate professor, 56997423370, marciacorvetto@gmail.com
Pablo Miranda, Assistant professor
About this study
Official title: Simulation-based Training for Ultrasound-guided Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block Performance: a Randomized Non-inferiority Study Comparing Direct Synchronous Feedback With Remote Asynchronous Feedback
The goal of this study is to evaluate whether remote asynchronous feedback is non-inferior to direct synchronous feedback during simulation-based training for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block performance. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Does asynchronous feedback achieve technical skill acquisition outcomes comparable to direct synchronous feedback? Can asynchronous feedback optimize teaching resources without compromising training quality?
Read more
Researchers will compare two feedback modalities within a simulation-based training program for deliberate practice of ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block techniques.
Participants will:
Receive training with either direct synchronous feedback or remote asynchronous feedback Perform simulation-based deliberate practice sessions Be assessed using validated instruments for technical skill performance
Read the detailed description
For the use of the simulation program based on the implementation of a continuous sciatic popliteal nerve block. To achieve this, a simulation program developed by researchers from the School of Medicine of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile will be used for residents from the Emergency Medicine and Critical Care specialty program.
Following approval by the institutional ethics committee, the scenario for 50 students will be prepared. The procedure room will include all the equipment required for performing the intervention, consisting of a video explaining the technique. The study will assess:
(i) Fundamentals and use of echography. (ii) Knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology. (iii) Development of dexterity: ability to perform the procedure correctly.
The students will receive a one-hour lecture on the procedure. This assessment will consist of performing a sciatic popliteal nerve block on a simulated clinical scenario. An evaluator blinded to the study objectives will assess participants using a Global Rating Scale (GRS) and a checklist. Additionally, a third evaluator will use the GRS and the checklist remotely (asynchronous feedback).
After the evaluations, the simulation room will remain open throughout the week for students to perform up to five practice sessions. The number of movements and total procedure time will be recorded during each assessment. Students will also complete a satisfaction questionnaire and a final written test after the simulation activity and before the final assessment.
Once the previous evaluation is completed, residents may begin their training.
Subsequently, residents will attend simulation sessions specifically designed to practice the sciatic popliteal nerve block under the guidance of an instructor. Sessions will last 2 hours. Each resident will complete 2 sessions, each separated by 1 week. During the first session, the instructor will explain and supervise correct use of the ultrasound equipment. During the second session, the resident will perform the entire procedure independently. The resident's performance will be recorded and later evaluated through an assessment platform.
One week after training completion, residents will undergo a final assessment using the same tools. The duration of the simulation-based sciatic popliteal nerve block procedure will be recorded. Total procedure time and the number of movements performed during the procedure will also be documented. Additionally, the procedure will be video recorded.
- Conditions
- Feedback
- Being tested
- Asynchronous distance feedback, Synchronous direct feedback
- Keywords
- Procedural skills, Distance-based simulation, simulation-based training, feedback
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Asynchronous distance feedbackOther
The experimental group practiced with ASYNC. Residents sched- uled their sessions and attended the simulation laboratory alone. The resident logged in to the C1DO1 platform. In the platform, the second 4 stages were practical exercises. The student recorded himself, performing the observed technique.9 The instructor was not present and provided feedback asynchronously via a C1DO1 platform. The ASYNC included texts, audio recordings, drawings annotating the trainee's video, and short example error videos from a library. In addition to the specific feedback in response to residents' videos, instructors also provided an objective assessment based on scores using a 9-item global rating scale (GRS). The student reviewed their feedback in the platform and identified the skills to improve for the next session.
Synchronous direct feedbackOther
The control group practiced with SYNC. The SYNC group attended the simulation laboratory for practice sessions. Residents were scheduled to practice with the instructor in a one-to-one ses- sion. The instructor was present during all the sessions and gave instructions and feedback in real time throughout all sessions (traditional face-to-face feedback modality).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Synchronous direct feedback (SYNC) | Active comparator | The control group practiced with synchronous direct feedback (SYNC). The SYNC group attended the simulation laboratory for practice sessions. Residents were scheduled to practice with the instructor in a one-to-one ses- sion. The instructor was present during all the sessions and gave instructions and feedback in real time throughout all sessions (traditional face-to-face feedback modality). Receives: Other: Synchronous direct feedback |
| Asynchronous distance feedback (ASYNC). | Experimental | The experimental group practiced with asynchronous distance feedback (ASYNC). Residents scheduled their sessions and attended the simulation laboratory alone. The resident logged in to the C1DO1 platform.The student recorded himself, performing the observed technique. The instructor was not present and provided feedback asynchronously via a C1DO1 platform. The ASYNC included texts, audio recordings, drawings annotating the trainee's video, and short example error videos from a library. In addition to the specific feedback in response to residents' videos, instructors also provided an objective assessment based on scores using a 9-item global rating scale (GRS). The student reviewed their feedback in the platform and identified the skills to improve for the next session. Receives: Other: Asynchronous distance feedback |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Performance assessment
The PRE and POST assessments were videotaped for evaluation by 2 independent and blinded reviewers. The simulation center staff recorded the assessment videos for a standard vision of the participant's hands and the ultrasound image. Two reviewers rated each resident's performance using an specific GRS previously validated. The reviewers were different from the instructors.
Measured: 8 weeks
Secondary outcomes (1)
ICSAD measurement
Two sensors of a tracking motion device were attached to the operator's hands, during the assess- ment. The Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device (ICSAD) is a device that tracks hand motion during a procedure using sensors placed on the back of the operator's hands. In this study, the ICSAD device recorded the total distance traveled by both hands (TPL). The simulation center staff installed the device in the operators' hands and recorded the data.
Measured: 8 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Jun 2026
- Study start28 May 2026
- Primary completion27 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion27 Mar 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for FeedbackStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Researchers will compare two feedback modalities within a simulation-based training program for deliberate practice of ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block techniques.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07659145
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 251205008
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 28 May 2026
- Last updated
- 22 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Miranda PF, Araneda AL, Molina NP, Miranda FG, Morrison C, Corvetto MA, Altermatt FR. Simulated-based training for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block: determining the learning curve and transference to real patient. Adv Simul (Lond). 2025 Nov 11;10(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s41077-025-00389-5.
PubMed 41219804Corvetto MA, Kattan E, Ramirez G, Besa P, Abbott E, Zamorano E, Contreras V, Altermatt FR. Simulation-Based Training Program for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement: Randomized Comparative Study of in-Person Training With Synchronous Feedback Versus Distance Training With Asynchronous Feedback. Simul Healthc. 2024 Dec 1;19(6):373-378. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000805. Epub 2024 Jun 17.
PubMed 38888993
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Simulation-based Training for Ultrasound-guided Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block Performance: a Randomized Non-inferiority Study Comparing Direct Synchronous Feedback With Remote Asynchronous Feedback
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07659145
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 251205008
- Conditions
- Feedback
- Keywords
- Procedural skills, Distance-based simulation, simulation-based training, feedback
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Pontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 28 May 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 27 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 27 Mar 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 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.
The goal of this study is to evaluate whether remote asynchronous feedback is non-inferior to direct synchronous feedback during simulation-based training for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block performance. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Does asynchronous feedback achieve technical skill acquisition outcomes comparable to direct synchronous feedback? Can asynchronous feedback optimize teaching resources without compromising training quality?
Researchers will compare two feedback modalities within a simulation-based training program for deliberate practice of ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block techniques.
Participants will:
Receive training with either direct synchronous feedback or remote asynchronous feedback Perform simulation-based deliberate practice sessions Be assessed using validated instruments for technical skill performance
Detailed description
For the use of the simulation program based on the implementation of a continuous sciatic popliteal nerve block. To achieve this, a simulation program developed by researchers from the School of Medicine of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile will be used for residents from the Emergency Medicine and Critical Care specialty program.
Following approval by the institutional ethics committee, the scenario for 50 students will be prepared. The procedure room will include all the equipment required for performing the intervention, consisting of a video explaining the technique. The study will assess:
(i) Fundamentals and use of echography. (ii) Knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology. (iii) Development of dexterity: ability to perform the procedure correctly.
The students will receive a one-hour lecture on the procedure. This assessment will consist of performing a sciatic popliteal nerve block on a simulated clinical scenario. An evaluator blinded to the study objectives will assess participants using a Global Rating Scale (GRS) and a checklist. Additionally, a third evaluator will use the GRS and the checklist remotely (asynchronous feedback).
After the evaluations, the simulation room will remain open throughout the week for students to perform up to five practice sessions. The number of movements and total procedure time will be recorded during each assessment. Students will also complete a satisfaction questionnaire and a final written test after the simulation activity and before the final assessment.
Once the previous evaluation is completed, residents may begin their training.
Subsequently, residents will attend simulation sessions specifically designed to practice the sciatic popliteal nerve block under the guidance of an instructor. Sessions will last 2 hours. Each resident will complete 2 sessions, each separated by 1 week. During the first session, the instructor will explain and supervise correct use of the ultrasound equipment. During the second session, the resident will perform the entire procedure independently. The resident's performance will be recorded and later evaluated through an assessment platform.
One week after training completion, residents will undergo a final assessment using the same tools. The duration of the simulation-based sciatic popliteal nerve block procedure will be recorded. Total procedure time and the number of movements performed during the procedure will also be documented. Additionally, the procedure will be video recorded.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Researchers will compare two feedback modalities within a simulation-based training program for deliberate practice of ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block techniques.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Synchronous direct feedback (SYNC) | Active comparator | Other: Synchronous direct feedbackThe control group practiced with synchronous direct feedback (SYNC). The SYNC group attended the simulation laboratory for practice sessions. Residents were scheduled to practice with the instructor in a one-to-one ses- sion. The instructor was present during all the sessions and gave instructions and feedback in real time throughout all sessions (traditional face-to-face feedback modality). |
| Asynchronous distance feedback (ASYNC). | Experimental | Other: Asynchronous distance feedbackThe experimental group practiced with asynchronous distance feedback (ASYNC). Residents scheduled their sessions and attended the simulation laboratory alone. The resident logged in to the C1DO1 platform.The student recorded himself, performing the observed technique. The instructor was not present and provided feedback asynchronously via a C1DO1 platform. The ASYNC included texts, audio recordings, drawings annotating the trainee's video, and short example error videos from a library. In addition to the specific feedback in response to residents' videos, instructors also provided an objective assessment based on scores using a 9-item global rating scale (GRS). The student reviewed their feedback in the platform and identified the skills to improve for the next session. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Medicine students
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- No exclusion Criteria
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Asynchronous distance feedbackThe experimental group practiced with ASYNC. Residents sched- uled their sessions and attended the simulation laboratory alone. The resident logged in to the C1DO1 platform. In the platform, the second 4 stages were practical exercises. The student recorded himself, performing the observed technique.9 The instructor was not present and provided feedback asynchronously via a C1DO1 platform. The ASYNC included texts, audio recordings, drawings annotating the trainee's video, and short example error videos from a library. In addition to the specific feedback in response to residents' videos, instructors also provided an objective assessment based on scores using a 9-item global rating scale (GRS). The student reviewed their feedback in the platform and identified the skills to improve for the next session. | Other | Asynchronous distance feedback (ASYNC). |
| Synchronous direct feedbackThe control group practiced with SYNC. The SYNC group attended the simulation laboratory for practice sessions. Residents were scheduled to practice with the instructor in a one-to-one ses- sion. The instructor was present during all the sessions and gave instructions and feedback in real time throughout all sessions (traditional face-to-face feedback modality). | Other | Synchronous direct feedback (SYNC) |
Primary outcome
Performance assessment
Time frame: 8 weeks
The PRE and POST assessments were videotaped for evaluation by 2 independent and blinded reviewers. The simulation center staff recorded the assessment videos for a standard vision of the participant's hands and the ultrasound image. Two reviewers rated each resident's performance using an specific GRS previously validated. The reviewers were different from the instructors.
1 secondary outcome
ICSAD measurement
Time frame: 8 weeks
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 22 Jun 2026.
- Background: PubMed 41219804Miranda PF, Araneda AL, Molina NP, Miranda FG, Morrison C, Corvetto MA, Altermatt FR. Simulated-based training for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block: determining the learning curve and transference to real patient. Adv Simul (Lond). 2025 Nov 11;10(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s41077-025-00389-5.
- Background: PubMed 38888993Corvetto MA, Kattan E, Ramirez G, Besa P, Abbott E, Zamorano E, Contreras V, Altermatt FR. Simulation-Based Training Program for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Placement: Randomized Comparative Study of in-Person Training With Synchronous Feedback Versus Distance Training With Asynchronous Feedback. Simul Healthc. 2024 Dec 1;19(6):373-378. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000805. Epub 2024 Jun 17.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Feedback
Not yet recruiting
AI Smart Glasses Feedback for Intubation Training in Medical Students
Intubation, Intratracheal, Medical Education
Not yet recruiting
The OXY-VENT Study
Cardiac Arrest (CA), Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)
Not yet recruiting
Multimodal Stewardship Programme to Improve Antibiotic Prescribing for Children With Lower Respiratory Tract Infections
Bronchitis, Acute, Community-acquired Pneumonia
Not yet recruiting
EEG Feedback-Based Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Post-Stroke Dysphagia
Ischemic Stroke, Post-stroke Dysphagia
Active, not recruiting
Functional and Neuroprotective Effects of Restoring Lower Limb Sensation After Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Lower Extremity Amputee, Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
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 Asynchronous distance feedback and Synchronous direct feedback in people with Feedback, run by Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile at 1 site in Chile.
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 1 inclusion and 1 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 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 Chile. 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?
Each site lists its own contact: choose the nearest one under Trial locations. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Performance assessment (time frame: 8 weeks). 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 NCT07659145, which also lists 2 linked publications.
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 22 Jun 2026.