Text

Introduction: Accurate lung percussion is an essential clinical skill. This study compares the precision of lung percussion performed by tutors and third-year medical students in order to assess differences in technical proficiency.

Methods: We included 49 third-year medical students and 25 tutors from our Faculty of Medicine during the academic year 2025/2026. All participants were asked to perform lung percussion, assess respiratory lung mobility on both sides, and determine the lower lung border at maximal expiration. The order of examinations was randomized to minimize order effects. All measurements were performed on a single healthy model to ensure comparability. The results were compared with respiratory lung mobility measured by ultrasound, which served as the reference standard. Absolute errors were calculated and compared between tutors and students. Statistical analyses were performed using JASP.

Results: All variables were normally distributed. The mean absolute error of lung mobility on the left side was 3.1±1.7 cm in the tutor group and 4.0±1.7 cm in the student group (Cohen’s d=0.53). On the right side, the mean absolute error was 3.1±1.5 cm in the tutor group and 4.4±1.5 cm in the student group (Cohen’s d=0.87). Absolute errors in lung mobility assessment by percussion were significantly lower in the tutor group compared with the student group on both sides of the chest (p<0.001). Effect sizes indicate a meaningful difference in technical proficiency.

Conclusions: Tutors estimated lung mobility using percussion more accurately than third-year medical students. This difference may reflect greater clinical experience and practice among tutors, who are senior students and receive preparatory training before assuming teaching roles. While these findings highlight differences in technical proficiency, they do not necessarily reflect teaching effectiveness. Limitations of this study include small and unequal group sizes and the use of a single model, as percussion accuracy may depend on individual anatomical factors. Future studies could benefit from a cross-over design or the inclusion of multiple models. Our findings may inform tutor training and peer-teaching strategies and underscore the importance of practical experience in clinical education.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.