Reporting quality of submissions to the National Conferences on Electronic Learning in Medical Education: implications from Iranian research performance

Background: Reporting quality of research on medical education has come under scrutiny in recent years in wake of empirical evidence. Poor reporting quality of published abstracts may distract readers from careful reading of research evidence or in a worst case mislead scientists. Main objective of this study was to evaluate the extent and quality of the submitted abstracts to the 3rd and 4th National Conference on Electronic Learning in Medical Education which were held in Mashad (2010) and Tabriz (2011), Iran. Methods: A stratified random sample of abstracts (n=188) representing quantitative and review studies were selected among a total of 366 accepted submissions. Their quality was assessed independently by authors based on the criteria explained by Reed et al and also the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Results: Findings from primary studies were described in 60.1%, narrative reviews in 39.4% and a systematic review in only 0.5% of abstracts. Sampling methods were reported amongst 58.4% and participation rate in 25.7% of abstracts from primary studies. Main aim among those abstracts that representing findings of narrative reviews was provided in 14.9%. Conclusions: Varied reporting quality of submitted abstracts may reflect the gaps we suffer to have a more robust national research performance in the field of medical education. They also may reflect pitfalls in our research methodology educational efforts but embrace national level challenges we face to ensure evidence based research outcome. To improve our national research productivity we recommend working on infrastructural prerequisites.