Reliability of a structured method of selecting abstracts for a plastic surgical scientific meeting

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 111, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 2215-2222

  Van der Steen, Lydia P E ^b   Hage, J Joris ^a   Kon, Moshe ^b   Mazzola, Riccardo ^b  

^a ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT REPORT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ESTHETIC SURGERY; EVALUATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PLASTIC SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING; CONGRESSES; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; EUROPE; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURGERY, PLASTIC;

EID: 0037643666     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000061092.88629.82     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Rubin, H. R., Redelmeier, D. A., Wu, A. W., and Steinberg, E. P. How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 8: 255, 1993.
2. Vilstrup, H., and Sorensen, H. T. A comparative study of scientific evaluation of abstracts submitted to the 1995 European Association for the Study of the Liver Copenhagen meeting. Dan. Med. Bull. 45: 317, 1998.
3. Rothwell, P. M., and Martyn, C. N. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123: 1964, 2000.
4. Montgomery, A. A., Graham, A., Evans, P. H., and Fahey, T. Inter-rater agreement in the scoring of abstracts submitted to a primary care research conference. B.M.C. Health Serv. Res. 2: 8, 2002.
5. Strayhorn, J., Jr., McDermott, J. F., Jr., and Tanguay, P. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Am. J. Psychiatry 150: 947, 1993.
6. Mazzola, R. Committees 1999-2000. In R. Mazzola (Ed.), European Association of Plastic Surgeons' Eleventh Annual Meeting Programme. Milan, Italy: European Association of Plastic Surgeons, 2000. P. 6.
7. Black, N., van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., and Evans, S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? J.A.M.A. 280: 231, 1998.
8. McNamara, D. A., Grannell, M., Watson, R. G., and Bouchier-Hayes, D. J. The research abstract: Worth getting it right. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 170: 38, 2001.
9. Smith, R. Problems with peer review and alternatives. Br. Med. J. (Clin. Res. Ed.) 296: 774, 1988.
10. Boyd, N. F., Wolfson, C., Moskowitz, M., et al. Observer variation in the interpretation of xeromammograms. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 68: 357, 1982.
11. Schouten, H. J. A. Nominal scale agreement among observers. Psychometrika 51: 453, 1986.
12. Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297, 1951.
13. Koster, P. H. L., Bossuyt, P. M. M., van der Horst, C. M. A. M., Gijsbers, G. H. M., and van Gemert, M. J. C. Assessment of clinical outcome after flashlamp pumped pulsed dye laser treatment of portwine stains: A comprehensive questionnaire. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 102: 42, 1998.
14. Altman, D. G. Inter-rater agreement. In Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991. Pp. 403-409.
15. Altman, D. G. Relation between several variables. In Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991. Pp. 325-364.
16. Jefferson, T., Wager, E., and Davidoff, F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. J.A.M.A. 287: 2786, 2002.
17. Siegelman, S. S. Assassins and zealots: Variations in peer review. Radiology 178: 637, 1991.
18. Gardner, M. J., Machin, D., and Campbell, M. J. Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies. Br. Med. J. (Clin. Res. Ed.) 292: 810, 1986.
19. Schouten, H. J. A. Probability of correct judgment by a majority of observers. In Statistical Measurement of Inter-observer Agreement (academic thesis). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus University, 1985. Pp. 67-68.
20. Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., and Martyn, C. N. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. J.A.M.A. 280: 237, 1998.
21. Mazzola, R. New Members 1999. In R. Mazzola (Ed.), European Association of Plastic Surgeons' Eleventh Annual Meeting Programme. Milan, Italy: European Association of Plastic Surgeons, 2000. P. 8.