ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
What Makes a Good Poster? Evaluating #BetterPoster and Classic Formats at a Scientific Cancer Conference.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academic posters have evolved significantly, shifting from rare presentation opportunities to a common method of scientific dissemination. As speaking time and individualized attention for posters have diminished, new challenges have emerged, emphasizing the need for effective visual communication. This study aimed to evaluate the adoption and effectiveness of the #BetterPoster (BP) format compared to the classic format (C) and to determine whether the modified format contributed to an improved experience for both viewers and readers. At the national Danish Cancer Research Conference 2024, a total of 103 posters were categorized and assessed systematically by independent raters using four criteria: first impression, organization, poster format, and wordiness. Statistical analyses, including t-tests and Kendall's W for interrater reliability, compared the formats, while Pearson correlations explored relationships between "first impression" and "organization," "poster format," or "wordiness." Results indicated that the BP format achieved higher scores for all criteria, with significant differences in first impression (p = 1.64e-06). However, both formats exhibited potential for high scores when designed mindfully, balancing text and visual elements. While the BP format improved audience engagement, excessive simplification or disorganization reduced its effectiveness. Classic posters, although often more text-heavy, could also be effective when structured carefully. The findings highlight the importance of coherent design and training in visual communication, suggesting that well-executed posters, regardless of format, can enhance academic engagement and knowledge dissemination. These insights could inform future guidelines for academic poster presentations, fostering more engaging and effective communication at conferences.
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.