ArticleFASEB bioAdvances2021
Are in-person scientific conferences dead or alive?
Article in FASEB bioAdvances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nephrology Health Professionals' Perspectives on Their Preferred Modality for Scientific Meetings, Balancing Affordability, Sustainability and Opportunities to Interact With Peers: An International Society of Nephrology Survey.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- Voices of conference attendees: how should future hybrid conferences be designed?BMC medical education · 2024Article
- The pandemic veneer: COVID-19 research as a mobilisation of collective intelligence by the global research community.Collective intelligence · 2023Article
- A quality improvement apprenticeship: Gross anatomy in the time of Covid-19.Anatomical sciences education · 2022Article
- Coming to Terms With a New Normal: Recovery, Resilience, and Opportunities in a Post-COVID-19 World.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2022Article
- Collaborating for the advancement of interdisciplinary research in benign urology (CAIRIBU): outcomes, effectiveness, and future directions of annual CAIRIBU meetings.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2022Article
- Starting over and thinking long term….FASEB bioAdvances · 2021Article
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
Given the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, life as we knew it has been turned upside down, but the need for science to go on has never been stronger. In the realm of scientific conferences, with the requirement for social distancing, the importance of wearing face coverings, and travel restrictions, only virtual meetings have been possible during the pandemic. But many are asking: What is the new post-pandemic normal likely to be? Do we still want to have in-person meetings when the restrictions are eased? Assuming we do, when will they be possible again, and under what conditions? Regardless of what the benefits of virtual symposia might be, are they here to stay? These questions, and many more that are being asked around the world today, are the subject of this perspective. Herein, we attempt to provide useful context and insight into where scientific meetings have been, where they are today, where they are going, and how they will get there. Our conclusion is that the pandemic has created an accelerated opportunity to make the world of future scientific conferences better in a "both/and" collaborative in-person/virtual scenario, not the more limited "pick one" choice.
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.