Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30680228›Full record

ReviewResearch integrity and peer review2019

Reporting in the abstracts presented at the 5th AfriNEAD (African Network for Evidence-to-Action in Disability) Conference in Ghana.

Eric Badu, Paul Okyere, Diane Bell, Naomi Gyamfi, Maxwell Peprah Opoku, Peter Agyei-Baffour, Anthony Kwaku Edusei

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Research integrity and peer review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Eric Badu1Department of Health Promotion and Disability Studies, School of Public Health, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID 0000-0002-0593-3550
Paul Okyere1Department of Health Promotion and Disability Studies, School of Public Health, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Diane Bell2Business Faculty, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa.
Naomi Gyamfi1Department of Health Promotion and Disability Studies, School of Public Health, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Maxwell Peprah Opoku3School of Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Peter Agyei-BaffourDepartment of Health Policy, Management and Economics, Kumasi, Ghana.
Anthony Kwaku Edusei1Department of Health Promotion and Disability Studies, School of Public Health, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology · GHCape Peninsula University of Technology · ZAUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe abstracts of a conference are important for informing the participants about the results that are communicated. However, there is poor reporting in conference abstracts in disability research. This paper aims to assess the reporting in the abstracts presented at the 5th African Network for Evidence-to-Action in Disability (AfriNEAD) Conference in Ghana.

methodsThis descriptive study extracted information from the abstracts presented at the 5th AfriNEAD Conference. Three reviewers independently reviewed all the included abstracts using a predefined data extraction form. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the extracted information, using Stata version 15.

resultsOf the 76 abstracts assessed, 54 met the inclusion criteria, while 22 were excluded. More than half of all the included abstracts (32/54; 59.26%) were studies conducted in Ghana. Some of the included abstracts did not report on the study design (37/54; 68.5%), the type of analysis performed (30/54; 55.56%), the sampling (27/54; 50%), and the sample size (18/54; 33.33%). Almost all the included abstracts did not report the age distribution and the gender of the participants.

conclusionThe study findings confirm that there is poor reporting of methods and findings in conference abstracts. Future conference organizers should critically examine abstracts to ensure that these issues are adequately addressed, so that findings are effectively communicated to participants.

Indexed as

AbstractsAfricaDisability researchMethodological issuesPoor reporting

Identifiers

PMID30680228
PMCPMC6335780
OpenAlexW2923860248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.