131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7997106)
1. Abstract scoring for the annual SMR program: significance of reviewer score normalization.
Glover GH; Henkelman RM
Magn Reson Med; 1994 Oct; 32(4):435-9. PubMed ID: 7997106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reliability of a structured method of selecting abstracts for a plastic surgical scientific meeting.
van der Steen LP; Hage JJ; Kon M; Mazzola R
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2003 Jun; 111(7):2215-22. PubMed ID: 12794462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Inferior reliability of VAS scoring compared with International Society of the Knee reporting system for abstract assessment.
Rahbek O; Jensen SL; Lind M; Penny JØ; Kallemose T; Jakobsen T; Troelsen A
Dan Med J; 2017 Apr; 64(4):. PubMed ID: 28385168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Orthopaedic Trauma Association Annual Meeting Program Committee: Analysis of Impact of Committee Size and Review Process on Abstract Acceptance.
OʼHara NN; Slobogean GP; Zhan M; Gardner MJ; McKee MD; Moore SM; Higgins TF; OʼToole RV;
J Orthop Trauma; 2018 May; 32(5):e176-e180. PubMed ID: 29401090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Review of the reviewer.
Ector H; Aubert A; Stroobandt R
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1995 Jun; 18(6):1215-7. PubMed ID: 7659574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reviewer agreement in scoring 419 abstracts for scientific orthopedics meetings.
Poolman RW; Keijser LC; de Waal Malefijt MC; Blankevoort L; Farrokhyar F; Bhandari M;
Acta Orthop; 2007 Apr; 78(2):278-84. PubMed ID: 17464619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.
Rubin HR; Redelmeier DA; Wu AW; Steinberg EP
J Gen Intern Med; 1993 May; 8(5):255-8. PubMed ID: 8505684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. How do Medical Societies Select Science for Conference Presentation? How Should They?
Kuczmarski TM; Raja AS; Pallin DJ
West J Emerg Med; 2015 Jul; 16(4):543-50. PubMed ID: 26265966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. How to write an abstract of a paper or a report to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Optometry.
Grosvenor T; Kirschen D; Cullen A; Newcomb RD; Takahashi E
Am J Optom Physiol Opt; 1983 May; 60(5):412-4. PubMed ID: 6881271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reliability of Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to Academic Family Medicine Meetings.
Fenton JJ; Tapp H; Thakur NM; Pfeifle AL
J Am Board Fam Med; 2020; 33(6):986-991. PubMed ID: 33219077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. English publication rate of 3,205 abstracts presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association and the Annual Research Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.
Ohtori S; Kubota G; Inage K; Yamauchi K; Orita S; Suzuki M; Sakuma Y; Oikawa Y; Sainoh T; Sato J; Ishikawa T; Miyagi M; Kamoda H; Aoki Y; Nakamura J; Inoue G; Takaso M; Toyone T; Takahashi K
J Orthop Sci; 2013 Nov; 18(6):1031-6. PubMed ID: 23873278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of abstracts submitted for the annual meeting of the German Neurosurgical Society 1999--unravelling a mystery.
Uhl E; Steiger HJ; Barth C; Reulen HJ
Zentralbl Neurochir; 1999; 60(4):196-201. PubMed ID: 10674337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Causes of historically low abstract submissions for the ASCLS annual meeting.
Butina M; Pretlow LG; Sawyer B; Scarano FJ; Polancic J
Clin Lab Sci; 2013; 26(2):100-5. PubMed ID: 23772476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The Fate of Abstracts Presented at the 2013 and 2014 Annual Meetings of the Romanian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Trifan A; Chihaia CA; Tanase O; Lungu CM; Stanciu C
J Gastrointestin Liver Dis; 2016 Dec; 25(4):533-536. PubMed ID: 27981310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Quality of the structured abstracts presented at a congress].
dos Santos EF; Pereira MG
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992); 2007; 53(4):355-9. PubMed ID: 17823741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Inter-rater agreement in the scoring of abstracts submitted to a primary care research conference.
Montgomery AA; Graham A; Evans PH; Fahey T
BMC Health Serv Res; 2002 Mar; 2(1):8. PubMed ID: 11914164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessment of abstracts submitted to the annual scientific meeting of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.
Bydder S; Marion K; Taylor M; Semmens J
Australas Radiol; 2006 Aug; 50(4):355-9. PubMed ID: 16884423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content.
Smith J; Nixon R; Bueschen AJ; Venable DD; Henry HH
J Urol; 2002 Nov; 168(5):2123-5. PubMed ID: 12394728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [The fate of the abstracts presented to the biannual meetings of the French National Society of Internal Medicine].
Gaundong Mbéthé GL; Grenouillet-Delacre M; Salmi LR; Mercié P; Longy-Boursier M
Rev Med Interne; 2008 Dec; 29(12):1080-2. PubMed ID: 18262685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Interrater reliability in grading abstracts for the orthopaedic trauma association.
Bhandari M; Templeman D; Tornetta P
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2004 Jun; (423):217-21. PubMed ID: 15232452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
