Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

Cite
More
Export CSVExport JSONEmailLinkedInX

Nursing students taught with generative AI scored higher in a review of 17 trials

Study title: Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence Teaching in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sample
n = 1,456
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
Published
1 min read
Truvace record
TRV-2026-2733cite or check it

Study title: Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence Teaching in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A systematic review and meta-analysis in Nurse Educator pooled 17 randomized controlled trials with 1,456 participants to test whether teaching nursing with generative AI changes learning outcomes. Teaching that integrated generative AI was associated with higher knowledge scores (standardized mean difference 0.53), practice-related scores (1.25) and teaching satisfaction (0.58).

Read the study abstract

BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used in nursing education. Its educational effects in nursing remain uncertain. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of using GenAI in teaching nursing. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to July 2026. Standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were pooled using random-effects models. Heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and small-study effects w…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials with 1,456 nursing students found generative AI-integrated teaching was linked to higher knowledge scores (SMD 0.53), practice-related scores (SMD 1.25) and teaching satisfaction (SMD 0.58).

In brief

Attitudes, competency and self-efficacy did not differ significantly between AI-integrated and comparison teaching. The authors say the findings point to possible benefits for knowledge, practice performance and satisfaction in nursing education.

The authors caution that extreme heterogeneity and sensitivity to individual studies limit confidence in how large and how reproducible the effects are. They recommend generative AI be used as a supervised teaching adjunct until higher-quality trials are available.

Main points

  1. The review searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to July 2026.
  2. Seventeen studies with 1,456 participants were included, and effects were pooled with random-effects models.
  3. Knowledge scores were higher with generative AI teaching (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.03-1.04).
  4. Practice-related scores showed the largest effect (SMD 1.25, 95% CI 0.23-2.28).
  5. Teaching satisfaction was higher (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.02-1.13).
  6. Attitudes, competency and self-efficacy did not differ significantly.
  7. Several confidence intervals come close to zero, and meta-regression findings were exploratory.

What the review found when it combined the studies

These are the review’s own pooled results, copied from its abstract. Truvace did not recalculate them.

  • Nursing students' teaching satisfaction with generative AI-integrated teaching compared with control teaching

    SMD 0.58 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.13)

    1,456 people · search to July 2026

    The review’s own words
    and teaching satisfaction (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.02-1.13)

  • Nursing students' knowledge scores with generative AI-integrated teaching compared with control teaching

    SMD 0.53 (95% CI 0.03 to 1.04)

    1,456 people · search to July 2026

    The review’s own words
    GenAI-integrated teaching was associated with higher knowledge scores (standardized mean differences 0.53, 95% CI 0.03-1.04)

  • Nursing students' practice-related scores with generative AI-integrated teaching compared with control teaching

    SMD 1.25 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.28)

    1,456 people · search to July 2026

    The review’s own words
    practice-related scores (SMD 1.25, 95% CI 0.23-2.28)

Code checks every number above against the review’s text before it is shown. The short labels are an AI model’s reading of that text, so the review’s own sentence sits under each one. A pooled figure is only as strong as the studies behind it. How Truvace uses pooled results

The full story

The analysis pooled standardized mean differences from randomized trials of generative AI in nursing teaching, using random-effects models. The authors also ran heterogeneity tests, sensitivity analyses, meta-regression and checks for small-study effects.

Three outcomes favored AI-integrated teaching: knowledge (SMD 0.53), practice-related performance (SMD 1.25) and satisfaction (SMD 0.58). The lower ends of all three confidence intervals sit near zero, so the true effects could be small.

No significant differences emerged for attitudes, competency or self-efficacy. The authors conclude that generative AI should serve as a supervised pedagogical adjunct pending high-quality trials.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Nurse Educatordoi:10.1097/nne.0000000000002355
    Peer-reviewed2026-10-23

Talk it over

Four questions to start onWho gets this benefit, and who was left out of the study or story?

Start with a question

Nursing students taught with generative AI scored higher in a review of 17 trialshttps://truvace.com/item/applications-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-teaching-in-nursing-education

  1. Who gets this benefit, and who was left out of the study or story?

    The gain A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials with 1,456 nursing students found generative AI-integrated teaching was linked to higher knowledge scores (SMD 0.53), practice-related scores (SMD 1.25) and teaching satisfaction (SMD 0.58).

    Answer in the thread

  2. How do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?

    The evidence This rests on a systematic review or meta-analysis with a sample of 1,456, from Nurse Educator.

    Answer in the thread

  3. What does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?

    The record’s own caveat The authors report extreme heterogeneity across trials and sensitivity to individual studies, which limit confidence in the magnitude and reproducibility of the effects; meta-regression findings were exploratory.

    Answer in the thread

  4. Have you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?

    Answer in the thread

The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.

What readers say

More from Education