These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Association Between Study Quality and Publication Rates of Medical Education Abstracts Presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting.
    Author: Sawatsky AP, Beckman TJ, Edakkanambeth Varayil J, Mandrekar JN, Reed DA, Wang AT.
    Journal: J Gen Intern Med; 2015 Aug; 30(8):1172-7. PubMed ID: 25814265.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Studies reveal that 44.5% of abstracts presented at national meetings are subsequently published in indexed journals, with lower rates for abstracts of medical education scholarship. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the quality of medical education abstracts is associated with subsequent publication in indexed journals, and to compare the quality of medical education abstracts presented as scientific abstracts versus innovations in medical education (IME). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medical education abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) 2009 annual meeting. MAIN MEASURES: Publication rates were measured using database searches for full-text publications through December 2013. Quality was assessed using the validated Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). KEY RESULTS: Overall, 64 (44%) medical education abstracts presented at the 2009 SGIM annual meeting were subsequently published in indexed medical journals. The MERSQI demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation range, 0.77-1.00) for grading the quality of medical education abstracts. MERSQI scores were higher for published versus unpublished abstracts (9.59 vs. 8.81, p = 0.03). Abstracts with a MERSQI score of 10 or greater were more likely to be published (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.47-6.89, p = 0.003). ). MERSQI scores were higher for scientific versus IME abstracts (9.88 vs. 8.31, p < 0.001). Publication rates were higher for scientific abstracts (42 [66%] vs. 37 [46%], p = 0.02) and oral presentations (15 [23%] vs. 6 [8%], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The publication rate of medical education abstracts presented at the 2009 SGIM annual meeting was similar to reported publication rates for biomedical research abstracts, but higher than publication rates reported for medical education abstracts. MERSQI scores were associated with higher abstract publication rates, suggesting that attention to measures of quality--such as sampling, instrument validity, and data analysis--may improve the likelihood that medical education abstracts will be published.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]