aceModerate evidence
More
Review of 5 trials shows AI gave nursing students small, unproven knowledge gains
Study title: The effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in learning outcomes of nursing students: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
- Evidence type
- Systematic review or meta-analysis
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- Published
- 2 min read
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2844cite or check it
Study title: The effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in learning outcomes of nursing students: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
A systematic review and meta-analysis pooled five randomized controlled trials testing AI-based technology in nursing education. The pooled effect on students' knowledge level was positive but small and not statistically significant.
Read the study abstract
BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize nursing education by enhancing learning experiences and educational outcomes. While researchers have investigated the usefulness of AI-based technology in nursing education, a systematic review emphasising randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required to provide solid evidence to address educators' scepticism of its application. In this review, we provide evidence-based insights from RCTs to guide nursing educators and policymakers in en…
The gain
A meta-analysis of five randomized trials found AI-based learning tools were linked to better skill performance, satisfaction and confidence and lower anxiety and cognitive load among nursing students.
In brief
Beyond knowledge, the trials pointed to better skill performance, higher satisfaction and more confidence, along with lower cognitive load and anxiety. These findings come from a narrative review of those outcomes rather than a pooled estimate.
The authors say the evidence is meant to help nurse educators and policymakers decide how to use AI in teaching, since educators have been sceptical. With only five trials included, the evidence base remains thin.
Main points
- The review searched Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar between January 15 and May 31, 2023.
- Five randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria.
- The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and used the CASP RCT Checklist to assess study quality.
- Two reviewers screened the studies and no discrepancies needed a third reviewer.
- AI had a positive, small and statistically insignificant effect on knowledge level.
- Trials also indicated positive effects on skill performance, satisfaction and confidence, and reduced cognitive load and anxiety.
The full story
The authors set out to test whether AI-based technology improves nursing students' knowledge, responding to educators' scepticism. They limited the review to randomized controlled trials to give firmer evidence than earlier reviews.
Searches ran from January 15 to May 31, 2023, across four databases plus manual checks of reference lists. Two reviewers screened studies independently, and they reported no disagreements that needed a third reviewer.
Five trials were analysed under three themes (cognitive, psychomotor and affective) and six sub-themes: knowledge level, cognitive load, skills performance, anxiety, satisfaction and confidence. Only knowledge level was pooled in the meta-analysis, where the effect was positive but not statistically significant.
Sources
1 on file- STEM Educationdoi:10.3934/steme.2025026
Talk it over
Who gets this benefit, and who was left out of the study or story?
Review of 5 trials shows AI gave nursing students small, unproven knowledge gainshttps://truvace.com/item/the-effectiveness-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-learning-outcomes-of-nursing-
Who gets this benefit, and who was left out of the study or story?
The gain A meta-analysis of five randomized trials found AI-based learning tools were linked to better skill performance, satisfaction and confidence and lower anxiety and cognitive load among nursing students.
Answer in the threadHow 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, from STEM Education.
Answer in the threadWhat does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?
The record’s own caveat Only five randomized trials were included, and the pooled effect on knowledge level was small and not statistically significant.
Answer in the threadHave 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