ArticleInternational nursing review2026
Outcomes, Evaluation Metrics, and Measurement Tools for Large Language Model Applications Research in Nursing: A Scoping Review.
Article in International nursing review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo systematically identify and categorize the outcomes, evaluation metrics, and measurement tools employed in studies evaluating the application of large language models (LLMs) in the nursing field.
backgroundLLMs are increasingly applied in nursing education, clinical practice, and research. However, outcomes, evaluation metrics, and measurement tools used to evaluate these applications remain heterogeneous and inconsistently reported, limiting cross-study comparability and evidence synthesis.
methodsThis scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Outcomes, evaluation metrics, and measurement tools were extracted and categorized according to the Consensus-based Method for the Selection of Health Outcome Measurement Tools (COMET) framework domains, then mapped to LLM task types based on the Trustworthiness and Reporting of Items for Prediction Model Development-Large Language Models (TRIPOD-LLM) guidelines. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Eight English and Chinese databases were searched to identify original empirical studies evaluating LLM applications in nursing, yielding 50 studies that met the inclusion criteria.
resultsA total of 56 distinct evaluative elements (encompassing clinical/educational outcomes, technical evaluation metrics, and standardized measurement tools) were extracted and categorized into three COMET-derived domains: objective efficiency indicators, intermediate effect indicators, and subjective experience indicators. Most measures focused on text generation and summarization tasks, while evaluation metrics for data extraction and decision support tasks were relatively limited. This reflects issues of reporting inconsistency and insufficient standardization. DISCUSSION: Performance metrics for LLMs in nursing applications exhibit uneven distribution across task modalities and operational scenarios, underscoring the necessity for standardized evaluation guidelines.
conclusionThis evidence-based review supports greater consistency in reporting and organizing LLM applications within nursing research and practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The findings of this review can support nurses and educators in selecting appropriate evaluation indicators, promoting safe and evidence-informed integration of LLMs. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY: When evaluating LLM applications in nursing, enhancing the clarity and consistency of outcome metric reporting facilitates the development of institutional-level guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.