ArticleMedizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983)2009
[Congress of the German Society of Internal Medicine 2009: evaluation of the poster exhibition].
Article in Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983), 2009. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe presentation of scientific posters gives young scientists the opportunity to present their data in the setting of a medical congress. In preparation of the organization of the 116th Congress of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM) 2010, the authors evaluated the poster rounds at the 115th Congress of the DGIM 2009 by using a questionnaire that was given to poster presenters, poster chairmen, and visitors. The authors sought to receive an instructive criticism for the organization in 2010.
methodsDistribution of questionnaires containing ten questions with preformulated response options and an additional field for further comments to all presenters, chairmen, and visitors of the poster rounds during the 115th Congress of the DGIM (April 2009).
results159 questionnaires were returned and evaluated. Almost all respondents quoted the poster presentation as being important for their scientific work (98%). In general, they were satisfied with the discussion at the poster rounds (83%). The amount of posters within one round was criticized by 41%, as was the inadequate adherence to time constraints and time frame and room conditions themselves.
conclusionThe poster exhibition of the 115th Congress of the DGIM 2009 was evaluated positively by most of the respondents to the survey. Nevertheless, helpful hints were retrieved as how to further improve poster rounds. They should be respected when planning the exhibition at the congress in 2010.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19779672What 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.