Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 May;72(5):1429-34.
doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182479c9b.

Don't forget the posters! Quality and content variables associated with accepted abstracts at a national trauma meeting

Affiliations

Don't forget the posters! Quality and content variables associated with accepted abstracts at a national trauma meeting

Lesly A Dossett et al. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 May.

Abstract

Background: As a primary venue for presenting research results, abstracts selected for presentation at national meetings should be of the highest scientific merit and research quality. It is uncertain to what degree this is achieved as the methodological quality of abstracts submitted to national surgical meetings has not been previously described. The objective of this study was to evaluate abstracts presented at a leading trauma meeting for methodological quality.

Methods: All abstracts accepted for the 2009 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma meeting were reviewed and scored for methodological quality based on 10 criteria (scores, 0-10; 10 being the highest). Criteria were based on nationally published methodology guidelines. Two independent reviewers who were blinded to institution, region, and author reviewed each abstract.

Results: A total of 187 abstracts were accepted for presentation (67 oral and 120 posters). The most frequent clinical topics were shock/transfusion (23%), abdomen (12%), and nervous system (11%). Shock/transfusion abstracts were more common in the oral presentations (31% vs. 19%; p = 0.06). Abstracts from the northeast and south regions were the most common in both oral (26% and 29%) and posters (25% and 24%). Basic science accounted for 12% of accepted studies, while 51% were clinical and 28% were health services/outcomes. Only 8% of abstracts presented randomized data and only 11% reported null findings. Overall abstract scores ranged from 3 to 10 (median, 7; mean, 7.4). Abstracts selected for poster presentation had an overall higher score than those selected for oral presentation (7.4 ± 1.7 vs. 6.8 ± 1.7; p = 0.02).

Conclusion: Although oral presentations traditionally receive the most attention and interest, the methodological quality of abstracts accepted for poster presentation equals (and sometimes exceeds) that of oral abstracts. Attendees of these national meetings should reconsider their time spent in viewing and visiting these poster sessions as with the oral presentations. In light of our findings, we highly encourage that all members and guests attend the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Poster Rounds at each year's scientific assembly.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DISCLOSURE

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of the Abstract Grading Sheet used.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Loh LC, Ong HT, Quah SH. Impact of various continuing medical education activities on clinical practice—a survey of Malaysian doctors on its perceived importance. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2007;36:281–284. - PubMed
    1. Brown TT, Proctor SE, Sinkowitz-Cochran RL, Smith TL, Jarvis WR Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Inc. Physician preferences for continuing medical education with a focus on the topic of antimicrobial resistance: Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:656–660. - PubMed
    1. Smith WA, Cancel QV, Tseng TY, Sultan S, Vieweg J, Dahm P. Factors associated with the full publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 2007;177:1084–1088. discussion 1088–1089. - PubMed
    1. Hoag CC, Elterman DS, Macneily AE. Abstracts presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting: determinants of subsequent peer reviewed publication. J Urol. 2006;176:2624–2629. discussion 2629. - PubMed
    1. Whitehouse MR, Atwal NS, Blom AW. Publication rates for hip surgery-related abstracts presented at national and international meetings. Orthopedics. 2009;32:407. - PubMed

Publication types