Lumbar PunctureAI-AssistedNCT07873073
AI-Assisted Instruction Versus Peer Learning for Sustained Lumbar Puncture Competency
A study testing Peer Learning in people with Lumbar Puncture, run by Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
This study compared three teaching methods for training resident physicians in lumbar puncture, a critical medical procedure used to collect spinal fluid for diagnosing conditions like meningitis. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Lumbar Puncture
- What is being tested?
- Peer Learning
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2025to 30 May 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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
- Resident physicians taking the medical licensing examination for the first time;
- No lumbar puncture training within 3 months prior to the study and no independent clinical experience in performing lumbar puncture;
- Ability to participate in training and assessments throughout the entire study period;
- Complete examination scores and teaching evaluation records.
Who cannot join
- Resident physicians who had received lumbar puncture training within 3 months prior to the study or had independent clinical experience in performing lumbar puncture;
- Inability to participate in training and assessments throughout the entire study period;
- Concurrent participation in other similar clinical skills teaching studies.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310000
About this study
Official title: AI-Assisted Instruction Versus Peer Learning for Sustained Lumbar Puncture Competency: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Three-Month Follow-Up
This study compared three teaching methods for training resident physicians in lumbar puncture, a critical medical procedure used to collect spinal fluid for diagnosing conditions like meningitis. One hundred thirty-five residents were randomly assigned to either traditional bedside teaching, peer-assisted learning (where trainees practiced in pairs and gave each other feedback), or artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted training using a smart simulator that provided real-time voice feedback on technique. All residents were tested immediately after training and again three months later to see how well they retained their skills. Right after training, all three groups performed equally well. However, after three months, both the peer-learning and AI groups scored significantly higher on practical skills than the traditional group, showing that these newer methods help slow skill decay. The AI group showed the greatest advantages in procedural standardization, pre-procedure assessment, post-procedure care, and operating speed. Meanwhile, residents in the peer-learning group reported the highest satisfaction with classroom interaction and teaching methods. In short, while all three approaches work well for short-term training, AI-assisted and peer-assisted learning are more effective than traditional teaching at helping residents maintain their lumbar puncture skills over time, with AI excelling in technical precision and efficiency, and peer learning offering a more engaging and collaborative learning experience.
Read the detailed description
Lumbar puncture is a core clinical procedural competency that resident physicians must master, and the degree of standardized proficiency directly impacts diagnostic safety and quality. Studies have indicated that the success rate of independent lumbar puncture performance among resident physicians remains suboptimal, with an elevated risk of complications, suggesting persistent deficiencies in conventional training modalities. In recent years, peer learning and AI-assisted instruction have emerged as innovative approaches for clinical skills training. Peer learning, centered on equitable interaction and bidirectional feedback, promotes learner autonomy. AI-assisted instruction facilitates learning through real-time monitoring, immediate feedback, and standardized guidance. Therefore, this study employed a randomized controlled design to systematically compare the training effectiveness of traditional teaching, peer learning, and AI-assisted instruction for lumbar puncture skills among resident physicians.
- Conditions
- Lumbar Puncture
- Being tested
- Peer Learning
- Keywords
- Artificial intelligence-assisted, Peer learning; Skill decay
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Peer LearningOther
The peer learning group received peer-assisted instruction. Following the instructor-organized video viewing and explanation of procedural standards and scoring criteria, participants were paired into dyads for three rounds of simulated practice. When Resident A performed the procedure, Resident B was responsible for scoring and timing; roles were reversed upon completion. After the initial round, both residents engaged in peer evaluation, with the instructor summarizing common issues and clarifying subsequent procedural precautions. The second round targeted identified weaknesses from the first round for focused reinforcement, followed by peer evaluation and instructor supplementary guidance. The third round simulated a formal examination scenario with mutual scoring and timing.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional Group | No intervention | The traditional group received conventional clinical mentorship. During training, the instructor organized participants to view a standardized lumbar puncture instructional video, systematically explaining indications, contraindications, procedural steps, precautions, common complications, and technical challenges, followed by a complete demonstration on a medical simulator with synchronous explanation of critical steps and procedural highlights. Participants then conducted three rounds of simulated practice according to the standardized lumbar puncture scoring scale, with strict adherence to the scale throughout training. The instructor maintained comprehensive oversight of procedural standardization, providing on-site guidance and error correction. |
| Peer Learning Group | Experimental | The peer learning group received peer-assisted instruction. Following the instructor-organized video viewing and explanation of procedural standards and scoring criteria, participants were paired into dyads for three rounds of simulated practice. When Resident A performed the procedure, Resident B was responsible for scoring and timing; roles were reversed upon completion. After the initial round, both residents engaged in peer evaluation, with the instructor summarizing common issues and clarifying subsequent procedural precautions. The second round targeted identified weaknesses from the first round for focused reinforcement, followed by peer evaluation and instructor supplementary guidance. The third round simulated a formal examination scenario with mutual scoring and timing. Receives: Other: Peer Learning |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Theoretical knowledge score of lumbar puncture (assessed at T0, T1, and T2)
Theoretical knowledge was assessed using a self-developed 20-item objective test covering core principles of lumbar puncture, clinical indications and contraindications, critical procedural points, peri-procedural precautions, and clinical significance of related laboratory indicators. Total scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better theoretical knowledge mastery.
Measured: 2 months
Secondary outcomes (3)
OSCE procedural skill score of lumbar puncture (assessed at T1 and T2)
Procedural skills were assessed using the OSCE lumbar puncture scoring criteria (Appendix 1), covering pre-procedure preparation, procedural process, post-procedure management, and overall evaluation. Total scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating superior procedural skill mastery.
Measured: 2 months
DOPS total score of procedural skill (assessed at T1 and T2)
Independent attending physicians applied the DOPS (Direct Observation of Procedural Skills) instrument to evaluate participants across four dimensions: preoperative assessment, procedural standardization, aseptic concept, and professional competence. Each dimension is scored on a 5-level scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), with a maximum total score of 20 points; higher scores indicate superior procedural skill performance
Measured: 2 months
Total duration of successful procedure completion (assessed at T1 and T2)
The total time required for each participant to successfully complete the lumbar puncture procedure was recorded from the start of the procedure to its successful completion.
Measured: 2 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Oct 2026
- Study start1 Jan 2025
- Primary completion31 Dec 2025
- Study completion30 May 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Lumbar PunctureStudies 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
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07873073
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 20261478
- Other IDs
- 20230242,20240410
- Acronym
- AI-Assisted
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 29 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 14 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data (IPD) from this study will not be shared. The primary reasons are: (1)Patient privacy and confidentiality - the dataset contains identifiable personal and educational performance information of resident physicians, and sharing IPD would risk breaching confidentiality commitments made to participants; (2) Ethical and regulatory restrictions- the study was approved by the institutional ethics committee under protocols that did not include broad data sharing provisions, and participants provided informed consent for research use only, not for public data release;
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- AI-Assisted Instruction Versus Peer Learning for Sustained Lumbar Puncture Competency: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Three-Month Follow-Up
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07873073
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AI-Assisted / 20261478
- Conditions
- Lumbar Puncture
- Keywords
- Artificial intelligence-assisted, Peer learning; Skill decay
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 May 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Oct 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 study compared three teaching methods for training resident physicians in lumbar puncture, a critical medical procedure used to collect spinal fluid for diagnosing conditions like meningitis. One hundred thirty-five residents were randomly assigned to either traditional bedside teaching, peer-assisted learning (where trainees practiced in pairs and gave each other feedback), or artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted training using a smart simulator that provided real-time voice feedback on technique. All residents were tested immediately after training and again three months later to see how well they retained their skills. Right after training, all three groups performed equally well. However, after three months, both the peer-learning and AI groups scored significantly higher on practical skills than the traditional group, showing that these newer methods help slow skill decay. The AI group showed the greatest advantages in procedural standardization, pre-procedure assessment, post-procedure care, and operating speed. Meanwhile, residents in the peer-learning group reported the highest satisfaction with classroom interaction and teaching methods. In short, while all three approaches work well for short-term training, AI-assisted and peer-assisted learning are more effective than traditional teaching at helping residents maintain their lumbar puncture skills over time, with AI excelling in technical precision and efficiency, and peer learning offering a more engaging and collaborative learning experience.
Detailed description
Lumbar puncture is a core clinical procedural competency that resident physicians must master, and the degree of standardized proficiency directly impacts diagnostic safety and quality. Studies have indicated that the success rate of independent lumbar puncture performance among resident physicians remains suboptimal, with an elevated risk of complications, suggesting persistent deficiencies in conventional training modalities. In recent years, peer learning and AI-assisted instruction have emerged as innovative approaches for clinical skills training. Peer learning, centered on equitable interaction and bidirectional feedback, promotes learner autonomy. AI-assisted instruction facilitates learning through real-time monitoring, immediate feedback, and standardized guidance. Therefore, this study employed a randomized controlled design to systematically compare the training effectiveness of traditional teaching, peer learning, and AI-assisted instruction for lumbar puncture skills among resident physicians.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional Group | No intervention | –The traditional group received conventional clinical mentorship. During training, the instructor organized participants to view a standardized lumbar puncture instructional video, systematically explaining indications, contraindications, procedural steps, precautions, common complications, and technical challenges, followed by a complete demonstration on a medical simulator with synchronous explanation of critical steps and procedural highlights. Participants then conducted three rounds of simulated practice according to the standardized lumbar puncture scoring scale, with strict adherence to the scale throughout training. The instructor maintained comprehensive oversight of procedural standardization, providing on-site guidance and error correction. |
| Peer Learning Group | Experimental | Other: Peer LearningThe peer learning group received peer-assisted instruction. Following the instructor-organized video viewing and explanation of procedural standards and scoring criteria, participants were paired into dyads for three rounds of simulated practice. When Resident A performed the procedure, Resident B was responsible for scoring and timing; roles were reversed upon completion. After the initial round, both residents engaged in peer evaluation, with the instructor summarizing common issues and clarifying subsequent procedural precautions. The second round targeted identified weaknesses from the first round for focused reinforcement, followed by peer evaluation and instructor supplementary guidance. The third round simulated a formal examination scenario with mutual scoring and timing. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Resident physicians taking the medical licensing examination for the first time;
- No lumbar puncture training within 3 months prior to the study and no independent clinical experience in performing lumbar puncture;
- Ability to participate in training and assessments throughout the entire study period;
- Complete examination scores and teaching evaluation records.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Resident physicians who had received lumbar puncture training within 3 months prior to the study or had independent clinical experience in performing lumbar puncture;
- Inability to participate in training and assessments throughout the entire study period;
- Concurrent participation in other similar clinical skills teaching studies.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Peer LearningThe peer learning group received peer-assisted instruction. Following the instructor-organized video viewing and explanation of procedural standards and scoring criteria, participants were paired into dyads for three rounds of simulated practice. When Resident A performed the procedure, Resident B was responsible for scoring and timing; roles were reversed upon completion. After the initial round, both residents engaged in peer evaluation, with the instructor summarizing common issues and clarifying subsequent procedural precautions. The second round targeted identified weaknesses from the first round for focused reinforcement, followed by peer evaluation and instructor supplementary guidance. The third round simulated a formal examination scenario with mutual scoring and timing. | Other | Peer Learning Group |
Primary outcome
Theoretical knowledge score of lumbar puncture (assessed at T0, T1, and T2)
Time frame: 2 months
Theoretical knowledge was assessed using a self-developed 20-item objective test covering core principles of lumbar puncture, clinical indications and contraindications, critical procedural points, peri-procedural precautions, and clinical significance of related laboratory indicators. Total scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better theoretical knowledge mastery.
3 secondary outcomes
OSCE procedural skill score of lumbar puncture (assessed at T1 and T2)
Time frame: 2 months
DOPS total score of procedural skill (assessed at T1 and T2)
Time frame: 2 months
Total duration of successful procedure completion (assessed at T1 and T2)
Time frame: 2 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data (IPD) from this study will not be shared. The primary reasons are: (1)Patient privacy and confidentiality - the dataset contains identifiable personal and educational performance information of resident physicians, and sharing IPD would risk breaching confidentiality commitments made to participants; (2) Ethical and regulatory restrictions- the study was approved by the institutional ethics committee under protocols that did not include broad data sharing provisions, and participants provided informed consent for research use only, not for public data release;
Related trials for Lumbar Puncture
Not yet recruiting
The Effect of ShotBlocker on Symptoms of Pain, Anxiety, and Cortisol Hormone Levels
Pain, Anxiety
RecruitingObservational study
Thinking and Memory Problems in People With HIV
HIV Positive
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Prediction of Response to Shunt Surgery in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Using Radscale and Lumbar Puncture
Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus, Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
Enrolling by invitation
Ultrasound-assisted vs Palpation-guided Lumbar Punctures
Lumbar Puncture
Not yet recruiting
Ultrasound Versus Palpation for Determining Spinal Puncture Level in Cesarean Section
Cesarean Section (MeSH: D002585), Anesthesia, Spinal (MeSH: D000775)
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. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Peer Learning in people with Lumbar Puncture, run by Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine 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 4 inclusion and 3 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Oct 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Theoretical knowledge score of lumbar puncture (assessed at T0, T1, and T2) (time frame: 2 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 14 Oct 2026.