Small nursing trial reports ChatGPT knowledge gain at six weeks, but its power to detect it is questioned

A pilot randomized trial with 32 undergraduate nursing students compared a ChatGPT-integrated teaching arm against a control on endotracheal suctioning knowledge. Scores were measured before, immediately after, and six weeks later, with the between-group difference reaching significance only at six weeks (p = 0.044). A reanalysis argues the design could reliably detect only much larger effects than the roughly 10-point gap reported. The authors' table header is also ambiguous about whether its intervals are interquartile or min-max ranges, which affects the estimated spread of scores. The trial was registered retrospectively, a point the paper itself acknowledges. The critique relies on the published figures and a power calculation rather than on new data collection.