Truace
Subscribe
70/100

Moderate evidence

GainPublished recordEducationGood Space

Full story
More
Export record JSONEmailLinkedInX

University study programs in the AI era examined through a PRISMA guided meta analysis of global trends and regional disparities in the Western Balkans

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2807raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Systematic review or meta-analysis
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
0fbcfdaeab1d…check it

Artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is becoming very important research field because of its extensive use, the absence of a thorough framework governing its use, ethical issues, and effects on student learning outcomes. In light of the increasing global commitment to incorporating AI into higher educational institutions, this study synthesizes current empirical findings using the PRISMA 2020 meta-analysis framework and estimate further the impact of AI in higher education using Meta Regression Anal…

The gain

A meta-analysis of 16 studies found that integrating AI in higher education had a moderate positive effect on learning outcomes (Hedges' g = 0.685, 95% CI 0.389 to 0.982).

What this doesn’t fix

Heterogeneity across the pooled studies was very high (I² = 95.5%), and the geographic imbalance of the literature restricts how far the findings generalise, particularly to Europe and the Western Balkans.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Discover Educationdoi:10.1007/s44217-026-01399-9
    Peer-reviewed2026-03-27

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.

  • Student learning outcomes with AI integration in higher education

    Hedges' g 0.685 (95% CI 0.389 to 0.982)

    16 studies

    The review’s own words
    The findings indicated a moderate and statistically significant positive impact of integrating AI in higher education, with a pooled effect size of Hedges’ g = 0.685 and a 95% confidence interval of [0.389, 0.982].

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-2026-2807, v1: “University study programs in the AI era examined through a PRISMA guided meta analysis of global trends and regional disparities in the Western Balkans.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2807 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 0fbcfdaeab1d4f97…

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. Publishedv10fbcfdaeab1d…

    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-2026-2807 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.