Interrater reliability in grading abstracts for the orthopaedic trauma association

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Volumn 423, Issue , 2004, Pages 217-221

  Bhandari, Mohit ^a,d   Templeman, David ^b   Tornetta III, Paul ^c  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; CONTINUING EDUCATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INJURY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NORMAL HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORTHOPEDICS; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 2942718844     PISSN: 0009921X     EISSN: 15281132     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000127584.02606.00     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S: What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 280:231-233, 1998.
2. Glover GH, Henkelman RM: Abstract scoring for the annual SMR program: Significance of reviewer score normalization. Magn Reson Med 32:435-439, 1994.
3. Kemp PM, Goddard JR: Assessment of abstracts submitted for the 1998 BNMS annual meeting: Concordance or lottery? Nucl Med Commun 20:195-198, 1999.
4. Kemper KJ, McCarthy PL, Cicchetti DV: Improving participation and interrater agreement in scoring Ambulatory Pediatric Association abstracts: How well have we succeeded? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 150:380-383, 1996.
5. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159-174, 1977.
6. Montgomery AA, Graham A, Evans PH, Fahey T: Inter-rater agreement in the scoring of abstracts submitted to a primary care research conference. BMC Health Serv Res 26:2-8, 2002.
7. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN: Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123:1964-1969, 2000.
8. Rubin HR, Redelmeier DA, Wu AW, Steinberg EP: How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Gen Intern Med 8:255-258, 1993.
9. Smith Jr J, Nixon R, Bueschen AJ, Venable DD, Henry II HH: Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content. J Urol 168:2123-2125, 2002.
10. Timmer A, Sutherland LR, Hilsden RJ: Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts. BMC Med Res Methodol 11: 3:2, 2003.
11. Uhl E, Steiger HJ, Barth C, Reulen HJ: Evaluation of abstracts submitted for the annual meeting of the German Neurosurgical Society 1999: Unravelling a mystery. Zentralbl Neurochir 60:196-201, 1999.
12. Van Der Steen LP, Hage JJ, Kon M, Mazzola R: Reliability of a structured method of selecting abstracts for a plastic surgical scientific meeting. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:2215-2222, 2003.
13. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 318:23-27, 1999.
14. Vilstrup H, Sorensen HT: 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 45:317-319, 1998