ArticleBMC medical education2023
Publication rates of congress abstracts is associated with abstract quality: Evaluation of Turkish National Medical Education Congresses and Symposia between 2010 and 2014 using MERSQI.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are many parameters that could be used to evaluate the quality of scientific meetings such as publication rates of meeting abstracts as full-text articles after the meeting or scoring with validated quality scales/tools that evaluate individual papers, project proposals, or submitted abstracts. This study aimed to determine the full-text publication rates for abstracts presented at Turkish National Medical Education Congresses and Symposia and to assess the quality of given abstracts. Abstracts presented at national medical education congresses and symposia between 2010 and 2014 in Türkiye were evaluated. Initially, the abstracts were evaluated if they were published as full-text articles in international and national peer-reviewed journals following the meeting. Secondly, the quality of presented abstracts was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scale. Overall publication rate for the abstracts was 11.3%. The publication rate of oral and poster presentations were 26.6% and 8.1%, respectively. Oral presentations had a statistically higher publication rate than poster presentations (p = .000). The mean MERSQI score for abstracts was 7.73 ± 2.59. The oral presentations had higher MERSQI mean scores than poster presentations (8.28 ± 2.46 vs. 7.61 ± 2.6; p = .032). Similarly, published abstracts had a significantly higher score compared to unpublished abstracts (10.07 ± 2.74 vs. 7.43 ± 2.41; p = .000). Interestingly, there was no statistical difference between the mean MERSQI scores of the published oral and poster presentations (9.33 ± 2.45 vs. 10.61 ± 2.72; p = .101). This study showed that the main factor for a meeting abstract to be published as a full-text article is the scientific quality of the study. The quality of presentations at annual medical education meetings in Türkiye were low compared with international meetings which did not improve over five years. An institutional policy that would set quality standards for medical education research and increase the awareness of researchers on the topic might help improve the design, execution, and reporting of such studies in Türkiye. The MERSQI could be a valuable tool to monitor the quality of submitted abstracts and to increase the awareness of novice researchers on high quality research.
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.