SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2025
Assessing the reporting quality of educational interventions in trials on caregiver education for children with developmental disabilities using the GREET checklist: a meta-research study.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInadequate reporting of interventions in educational research hinders the identification and replication of effective teaching strategies. This study aimed to analyze the reporting of educational interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on educating parents and caregivers of children with developmental disabilities (CDD).
methodsThis was a meta-research study, conducted on the literature synthesized in a prior scoping review. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to November 13, 2023. Eligible studies were RCTs on the education of CDD parents/caregivers. We evaluated reporting using the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-Based Practice Educational Interventions and Teaching (GREET) checklist and its explanatory paper. The primary outcome was median adherence to the GREET checklist, while secondary outcomes included adherence to individual checklist items. We analyzed discrepancies in ratings between the two raters and assessed improvements in reporting practices over time.
resultsWe analyzed 161 trials published from 1984 to 2023. Median adherence to the GREET checklist was 59% (10 out of 17 reported items), ranging from 29 to 82%. Adherence to individual GREET items varied from 2% (“Delivered as scheduled”) to 99% (“Intervention”, “Theory”, and “Educational Strategies”). The poorest adherence to the GREET checklist was found for items “Materials included”, “Adaptations”, “Incentives”, “Modifications”, and “Delivered as scheduled”. Discrepancies between two raters were noted in 565 (21%) of the 2,737 analyzed GREET items, with Cohen’s Kappa at 0.616. A modest improvement in reporting practices was observed in studies published from 2018 onward, compared to those published before 2018.
conclusionThe reporting of educational interventions in analyzed RCTs was suboptimal. To enhance study replicability, specific educational materials must be reported in detail or included as supplementary files to foster evidence-based practice. Some GREET checklist items are challenging to score and would benefit from more precise definitions. Addressing these gaps could improve the efficacy of educational programs for parents and caregivers of children with developmental disabilities and the usability of the GREET checklist.
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.