Evidence Hub

Comparison of artificial intelligence assisted training and traditional learning paths in clinical simulation skills training: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Che S, Zhao H, Lu T, You Z

Frontiers in medicine, 2026

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into clinical simulation training, yet its overall effectiveness compared to traditional learning remains unclear. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the impact of AI-assisted training versus traditional instruction on clinical skills performance, procedure time, and learner satisfaction.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 10, 2026. RCTs comparing AI-assisted training (real-time feedback, intelligent tutoring, AI-simulated patients, or image recognition support) with traditional instruction (expert-led, self-directed, or role-play) in simulation-based clinical skills training were included. The primary outcome was clinical skills score. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models based on heterogeneity.

Results: Twelve RCTs were included. Overall, significant difference was found between AI-assisted and traditional training for clinical skills score. Subgroup analysis revealed that AI significantly improved surgical and invasive procedural skills, but showed no advantage for clinical assessment and diagnostic skills. In addition, the vision-based deep-learning AI model may have more advantages in medical training than the traditional training method, while the large language model did not demonstrate statistically significant differences with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free