Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 3, Issue , 2003, Pages 1-7

  Timmer, Antje ^b   Sutherland, Lloyd R ^a   Hilsden, Robert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DOCUMENTATION; EVALUATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSIBILITY; STANDARDIZATION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 3042675329     PISSN: 14712288     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-2     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Scherer RW and Langenberg P Full publication of results initally presented in abstracts (Cochrane Methodology Review). The Cochrane Library 2001, Oxford: Update Softw (4):
2. Scherer RW, Dickersin K and Langenberg P Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1994, 272:158-162
3. Sacks JJ and Peterson DE Improving conference abstract selection [letter]. Epidemiology 1994, 5:636-637
4. Conn HO An experiment in blind program selection. Clin Res 1974, 22:128-134
5. Appleton DR and Kerr DN Choosing the programme for an international congress. Br Med J 1978, 1:421-423
6. Kemper KJ, McCarthy PL and Cicchetti DV Improving participation and interrater agreement in scoring Ambulatory Pediatric Association abstracts. How well have we succeeded? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996, 150:380-383
7. Vilstrup H and 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 1998, 45:317-319
8. Rubin HR, Redelmeier DA, Wu AW and Steinberg EP 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 1993, 8:255-258
9. Koren G, Graham K, Shear H and Einarson T Bias against the null hypothesis: the reproductive hazards of cocaine. Lancet 1989, 1140-1142
10. McIntosh N Abstract information and structure at scientific meetings [letter]. Lancet 1996, 347:544-545
11. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P and Walsh S Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995, 16:62-73
12. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R and Egger M The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999, 282:1054-1060
13. Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D and Ambroz A A method for assessing the quality of a randomized controlled trial. Control Clin Trials 1981, 2:31-49
14. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ and McQuay HJ Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996, 17:1-12
15. Friedenreich CM Methods for pooled analyses of epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 1993, 4:295-302
16. Cho MK and Bero LA Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA 1994, 272:101-104
17. Haynes RB More informative abstracts: current status and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol 1993, 46:595-597
18. Froom P and Froom J Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol 1993, 46:591-594
19. Landis JR and Koch GG The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174
20. Seigel DG, Podgor MJ and Remaley NA Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol 1992, 135:571-578
21. Streiner DL and Norman GR Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, New York, Tokyo: Oxford University Press 1989,
22. Feinstein AR The theory and evaluation of sensibility. In Clinimetrics New Haven, London: Yale University Press 1987, 141-166
23. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N and Keller J An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol 1993, 46:987-1001
24. Oxman AD, Guyatt G and Guyatt GH Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991, 11:1271-1278
25. Panush RS, Delafuente JC, Connelly CS, Edwards NL, Greer JM, Longley S and Bennett F Profile of a meeting: how abstracts are written and reviewed. J Rheumatol 1989, 16:145-147
26. Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K, Hetherington J, Tarnow-Mordi W, Meinert C, Tonascia s and Chalmers TC A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA 1990, 263:1401-1405
27. Narine L, Yee DS, Einarson TR and Ilersich AL Quality of abstracts of original research articles in CMAJ in 1989. CMAJ 1991, 144:449-453
28. Scherer RW and Crawley B Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts. JAMA 1998, 280:269-272
29. Deeks JJ and Altman DG Inadequate reporting of controlled trials as short reports. Lancet 1998, 352:1908-1909
30. Weintraub WH Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisal. J Ped Surg 1987, 22:11-13
31. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C and Young G Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting. Why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 1998, 280:257-259
32. Moher D, Jadad AR and Tugwell P Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1996, 12:195-208
33. Schulz KF, Chalmers I and Hayes RJ Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment in controlled trials. JAMA 1995, 273:408-412
34. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM and Knipschild PG The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1235-1241
35. Timmer A, Hilsden RJ and Sutherland LR Determinants of abstract acceptance for the Digestive Diseases Week - a cross sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001, 1:13
36. Timmer A, Hilsden RJ, Cole J, Hailey D and Sutherland LR Publication bias in gastroenterological research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002, 2:7