64 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 997596)
1. A statistical analysis of reviewer agreement and bias in evaluating medical abstracts.
Cicchetti DV; Conn HO
Yale J Biol Med; 1976 Sep; 49(4):373-83. PubMed ID: 997596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reviewer agreement trends from four years of electronic submissions of conference abstract.
Rowe BH; Strome TL; Spooner C; Blitz S; Grafstein E; Worster A
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Mar; 6():14. PubMed ID: 16545143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Improving the quality of abstract reporting for phase I cancer trials.
Strevel EL; Chau NG; Pond GR; Murgo AJ; Ivy PS; Siu LL
Clin Cancer Res; 2008 Mar; 14(6):1782-7. PubMed ID: 18347180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Publication bias of randomized controlled trials in emergency medicine.
Ospina MB; Kelly K; Klassen TP; Rowe BH
Acad Emerg Med; 2006 Jan; 13(1):102-8. PubMed ID: 16365332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quality of abstracts in 3 clinical dermatology journals.
Dupuy A; Khosrotehrani K; Lebbé C; Rybojad M; Morel P
Arch Dermatol; 2003 May; 139(5):589-93. PubMed ID: 12756095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quality of abstracts describing randomized trials in the proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings: guidelines for improved reporting.
Krzyzanowska MK; Pintilie M; Brezden-Masley C; Dent R; Tannock IF
J Clin Oncol; 2004 May; 22(10):1993-9. PubMed ID: 15143092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interobserver variability in collecting data from medical records.
Beard CM; Bergstralh EJ; Klee GG
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1988 Jun; 112(6):594-6. PubMed ID: 3377658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. [Abstract quality assessment of articles from the Annales de Dermatologie].
Khosrotehrani K; Dupuy A; Lebbé C; Rybojad M; Morel P
Ann Dermatol Venereol; 2002 Nov; 129(11):1271-5. PubMed ID: 12514515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Publication bias in papers presented to the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting.
Harris IA; Mourad MS; Kadir A; Solomon MJ; Young JM
ANZ J Surg; 2006 Jun; 76(6):427-31. PubMed ID: 16768761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals.
Berwanger O; Ribeiro RA; Finkelsztejn A; Watanabe M; Suzumura EA; Duncan BB; Devereaux PJ; Cook D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Apr; 62(4):387-92. PubMed ID: 19010643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Continuous quality improvement applied to a scientific assembly: the history of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
Schwartz RJ; Jacobs LM; Gabram SG; Bennett-Jacobs B
J Trauma; 1993 Oct; 35(4):544-9. PubMed ID: 8411277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Factors associated with the full publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.
Smith WA; Cancel QV; Tseng TY; Sultan S; Vieweg J; Dahm P
J Urol; 2007 Mar; 177(3):1084-8; discussion 1088-9. PubMed ID: 17296415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Pediatric emergency medicine research: a critical evaluation.
Spandorfer PR; Alessandrini EA; Shaw KN; Ludwig S
Pediatr Emerg Care; 2003 Oct; 19(5):293-301. PubMed ID: 14578827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The research abstract: worth getting it right.
Mcnamara ; Grannell M; Watson RG; Bouchier-Hayes DJ
Ir J Med Sci; 2001; 170(1):38-40. PubMed ID: 11440411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
