ArticleAnnals of cardiac anaesthesia2026
Assessment of Perceived Scientific and Social Benefits and Satisfaction Levels among Participants of a Critical Care Academic Conference: A Survey-based Study.
Article in Annals of cardiac anaesthesia, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcademic conferences serve as an important platform for dissemination of research and knowledge. However, there are limited data on the scientific, social, and networking benefits these conferences provide for their participants.
methodsWe conducted a Google form survey-based study to evaluate the scientific and networking benefits and assess satisfaction levels with the conduct of an acute Care conference. Pre- and postconference survey forms were sent to the participants, which were analyzed to assess the participants' expectations and satisfaction levels.
resultsA total of 116 matched pre- and postconference responses were analyzed. The residents formed the majority of the respondents. The main objective of attending the conference was to present their scientific work in a public forum (52.6%), followed by attending the workshop (25.9%). In the preconference survey, 58.6% of respondents anticipated hands-on workshop would be the most useful session. However, after attending the conference proceedings, they found other areas like panel discussions (25%) were also useful along with hands-on workshops (38.8%). Overall conference experience was favorable (41.4% excellent), with strong networking opportunities (37.1% excellent) and a high likelihood of future collaboration (31.9% excellent).
conclusionResearch presentations and skill enhancement through hands-on workshops were the key drivers of participation in this conference. Networking opportunities were highly valued, particularly for connecting with eminent national speakers and collaborating on scientific writing.
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.