Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

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

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2733raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
a51bac7ec349…check it

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).

What this doesn’t fix

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.

Sources

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

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

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2733, v1: “Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence Teaching in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2733 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 a51bac7ec349f80e…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv1a51bac7ec349…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2733 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.