ArticleUlusal cerrahi dergisi2016
Analysis of reporting quality for oral presentations of observational studies at 19
Article in Ulusal cerrahi dergisi, 2016. 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
objectiveTo compare the quality of oral presentations presented at the 19 MATERIAL AND
methodsFifty randomly selected observational studies, which were blinded for author and institute information, were evaluated by using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies (STROBE), Timmer Score, and National Evaluation System by two reviewers. Abstract scores, evaluation periods, and compatibility between reviewers were compared for each evaluation system. Abstract scores by three different evaluation systems were regarded as the main outcome. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank and Friedman tests for comparison of scores and times, kappa analysis for compatibility between reviewers, and Spearman correlation for analysis of reviewers based on pairs of evaluation systems were used.
resultsThere was no significant difference between abstract scores for each system (p>0.05). A significant difference for evaluation period of reviewers was detected for each system (p<0.05). Compatibility between reviewers was the highest for the Timmer Score (medium, κ=0.523), and the compatibility for STROBE and National Evaluation System was regarded as acceptable (κ=0.394 and κ=0.354, respectively). Assessment of reviewers for pairs of evaluation systems revealed that scores increased in the same direction with each other significantly (p<0.05).
conclusionThe National Evaluation System is an appropriate method for evaluation of conference abstracts due to the consistent results between the referees similarly with the current international evaluation systems and ease of applicability with regard to evaluation period.
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.