Trial reportActa orthopaedica2024
A simplified, 2-question grading system for evaluating abstracts in orthopedic scientific meetings: a serial randomization study.
Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeEfficient abstract scoring for congress presentation is important. Given the emergence of new study methodologies, a scoring system that accommodates all study designs is warranted. We aimed to assess the equivalence of a simplified, 2-question abstract grading system with a more complex currently used system in assessing abstracts submitted for orthopedic scientific meetings in a serial randomized study.
methodsDutch Orthopedic Association Scientific Committee (DOASC) members were randomized to grade abstracts using either the current grading system, which includes up to 7 scoring categories, or the new grading system, which consists of only 2 questions. Pearson correlation coefficient and mean abstract score with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
resultsAnalysis included the scoring of 195 abstracts by 12-14 DOASC members. The average score for an abstract using the current system was 60 points (CI 58-62), compared with 63 points (CI 62-64) using the new system. By using the new system, abstracts were scored higher by 3.3 points (CI 1.7-5.0). Pearson correlation was poor with coefficient 0.38 (P < 0.001).
conclusionThe simplified abstract grading system exhibited a poor correlation with the current scoring system, while the new system offers a more inclusive evaluation of varying study designs and is preferred by almost all DOASC members.
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.