ArticleBMC medical research methodology2003
Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Metal/Metalloid Levels in Electronic Cigarette Liquids, Aerosols, and Human Biosamples: A Systematic Review.Environmental health perspectives · 2020Pooled it
- Gestational tissue inflammatory biomarkers at term labor: A systematic review of literature.American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2018Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of the Effect of Cognitive Strategies on Strength Performance.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015Pooled it
- A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants.PloS one · 2010Pooled it
- First-line eradication of H pylori infection in Europe: a meta-analysis based on congress abstracts, 1997-2004.World journal of gastroenterology · 2006Pooled it
- A simplified, 2-question grading system for evaluating abstracts in orthopedic scientific meetings: a serial randomization study.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Trial
- Article
- Article
- Optimal storage time and temperature of human oral samples to minimize microbiome changes: A scoping review.The Japanese dental science review · 2024Article
- Ethnomedicinal plants used for the prevention and treatment of anemia in the Philippines: a systematic review.Tropical medicine and health · 2023Review
- Fostering the Next Generation of Researchers: a Sustainable Mentoring Program for Early Career Toxicologists in Scientific Abstract Review.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2023Article
- A Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MMERSQI) developed by Delphi consensus.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Criteria for selection and classification of studies in medical events.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
- Compensation or Displacement of Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Leveling the field: Development of reliable scoring rubrics for quantitative and qualitative medical education research abstracts.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Using the Timmer Scale to Standardize Pediatric Dentistry Residents' Scientific Appraisal Skills.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2021Article
- Pitfalls in scientific research: critical appraisal of articles published in one of the international journals in Egypt.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- Analysis of reporting quality for oral presentations of observational studies at 19Ulusal cerrahi dergisi · 2016Article
- How do Medical Societies Select Science for Conference Presentation? How Should They?The western journal of emergency medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of abstracts for scientific meetings has been shown to suffer from poor inter observer reliability. A measure was developed to assess the formal quality of abstract submissions in a standardized way.
methodsItem selection was based on scoring systems for full reports, taking into account published guidelines for structured abstracts. Interrater agreement was examined using a random sample of submissions to the American Gastroenterological Association, stratified for research type (n = 100, 1992-1995). For construct validity, the association of formal quality with acceptance for presentation was examined. A questionnaire to expert reviewers evaluated sensibility items, such as ease of use and comprehensiveness.
resultsThe index comprised 19 items. The summary quality scores showed good interrater agreement (intra class coefficient 0.60 - 0.81). Good abstract quality was associated with abstract acceptance for presentation at the meeting. The instrument was found to be acceptable by expert reviewers.
conclusionA quality index was developed for the evaluation of scientific meeting abstracts which was shown to be reliable, valid and useful.
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.