ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Revised Mixed-Approach Rubric for the Quality of Academic Posters.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality of posters at pharmacy conferences can vary. We created a mixed-approach rubric (MAR) for poster quality. Evidence from multiple sources (systematic review, further analysis of rater scores, verbal feedback from raters) showed the need to slightly modify that MAR, which we accomplished. Our objectives here were to re-evaluate scoring using this revised MAR (rMAR) and to further examine the attributes of lower-quality versus higher-quality posters. Two faculty raters independently scored each poster using the rMAR for recent posters presented at a pharmacy education conference. The Rasch Measurement Model provided psychometric evidence and poster-quality measures. These measures were then linear-regressed with attributes of logical sequencing, QR-code presence/use, submission abstract presence, and wordiness. Moreover, Traditional vs. Contemporary poster formats were compared. Raters scored 642 posters (267 from 2023, 375 from 2024). The Rasch Measurement Model showed a distinct separation of posters into lower quality versus higher quality. The rMAR's rating scale continued to function well (like the original MAR had) among multiple raters. Poster-quality measures were significantly positive when linearly regressed with logical sequencing, QR-code presence/use, absence of submission abstract, and decreased wordiness. Moreover, Contemporary poster formats (either Persky-style or Billboard-style) were higher quality on average than Traditional poster formats. This evidence-based rMAR showed a helpful validation of poster-quality scores. Regression confirmed findings from the initial MAR (before revision), and choice of poster format proved a notable decision affecting poster quality.
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.