Abstract:Objectives: The objectives of this study are to assess reporting of evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) e-learning interventions using the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) checklist and explore factors associated with compliant reporting. Design: Methodological cross-sectional study. Methods: Based on the criteria used in an earlier systematic review, we included studies comparing EBHC e-learning and any other form of EBHC training or no EBHC training. We searched Medline, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, PsycInfo, ProQuest and Best Evidence Medical Education up to 4 January 2023. Screening of titles, abstracts, full-text articles and data extraction was done independently by two authors. For each study, we assessed adherence to each of the 17 GREET items and extracted information on possible predictors. Adequacy of reporting for each item of the GREET checklist was judged with yes (provided complete information), no (provided no information), unclear (when insufficient information was provided), or not applicable, when the item was clearly of no relevance to the intervention described (such as for item 8-details about the instructors-in the studies which used electronic, self-paced intervention, without any tutoring). Studies' adherence to the GREET checklist was presented as percentages and absolute numbers. We performed univariate analysis to assess the association of potential adherence predictors with the GREET checklist. We summarised results descriptively. Results: We included 40 studies, the majority of which assessed e-learning or blended learning and mostly involved medical and other healthcare students. None of the studies fully reported all the GREET items. Overall, the median number of GREET items met (received yes) per study was 8 and third quartile (Q3) of GREET items met per study was 9 (min. 4 max. 14). When we used Q3 of the number of items met as cut-off point, adherence to the GREET reporting checklist was poor with 7 out of 40 studies (17.5%) reporting items of the checklist on acceptable level (adhered to at least 10 items out of 17). None of the studies reported on all 17 GREET items. For 3 items, 80% of included studies well reported information (received yes for these items): item 1 (brief description of intervention), item 4 (evidence-based practice content) and item 6 (educational strategies). Items for which 50% of included studies reported complete information (received yes for these items) included: item 9 (modes of delivery), item 11 (schedule) and 12 (time spent on learning). The items for which 70% or more of included studies did not provide information (received no for these items) included: item 7 (incentives) and item 13 (adaptations; for both items 70% of studies received no for them), item 14 (modifications of educational interventions-95% of studies received no for this item), item 16 (any processes to determine whether the materials and the educational strategies used in the educational intervention were delivered as originally planned-93% of studies received no for this item) and 17 (intervention delivery according to schedule-100% of studies received no for this item). Studies published after September 2016 showed slight improvements in nine reporting items. In the logistic regression models, using the cut-off point of Q3 (10 points or above) the odds of acceptable adherence to GREET guidelines were 7.5 times higher if adherence to other guideline (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, etc) was reported for a given study type (p=0.039), also higher number of study authors increased the odds of adherence to GREET guidance by 18% (p=0.037). Conclusions: Studies assessing educational interventions on EBHC e-learning still poorly adhere to the GREET checklist. Using other reporting guidelines increased the odds of better GREET reporting. Journals should call for the use of appropriate use of reporting guidelines of future studies on teaching EBHC to increase transparency of reporting, decrease unnecessary research duplication and facilitate uptake of research evidence or result. Study registration number: The Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V86FR).

STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology)

Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration

[How to Write High-Quality Epidemiological Research Paper Ⅵ. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Nutritional Epidemiology (Strobe-Nut)].

The quality of reporting in clinical research: the CONSORT and STROBE initiatives

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

CONSORT-EHEALTH: improving and standardizing evaluation reports of Web-based and mobile health interventions

Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)

CONSORT extension for the reporting of randomised controlled trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE): checklist with explanation and elaboration

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

STROBE-GEMA: a STROBE extension for reporting of geographically explicit ecological momentary assessment studies

A Delphi survey to determine how educational interventions for evidence-based practice should be reported: Stage 2 of the development of a reporting guideline

Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist

Microbiology Investigation Criteria for Reporting Objectively (MICRO): a framework for the reporting and interpretation of clinical microbiology data

Protocol for the development of a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations using cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC)

GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines

Adherence to the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) of studies on evidence-based healthcare e-learning: a cross-sectional study

The LEADING Guideline. Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.

Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)

Protocol for Development of a Reporting Guideline for Causal and Counterfactual Prediction Models