dos Santos Edilson F, Pereira Maurício G
Fundação de Ensino e Pesquisa em Ciências da Saúde, Brasília, DF.
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2007 Jul-Aug;53(4):355-9. doi: 10.1590/s0104-42302007000400023.
To assess and compare quality of abstracts presented at a medical congress (XIV Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, November, 2005). The hypothesis is that material of better quality is chosen for oral presentation.
All the 63 abstracts selected for oral presentation were compared with a random sample (n=63) of the 664 abstracts registered as poster presentations. Quality was measured by a structured questionnaire comprised of 33 criteria, distributed in eight categories: purpose, research design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement, results and conclusions. The questionnaire was applied by one of the authors who were not blind to the objective of the study. The final score could range from 0 (bad) to 1 (excellent).
Abstracts quality was considered moderately good. The overall mean quality scores were 0.60 and 0.62 respectively, for poster and oral presentation (p = 0.086). The criteria rated poorly were: subjects, variable measurements, location and conclusion.
The tested hypothesis of better quality in abstracts selected for oral presentation has not been confirmed. It is recommended that organizers of the congresses the use of objective quality criteria to select the form of presentation while improving on quality.
评估并比较在一次医学大会（巴西传染病学会第十四届大会，2005年11月）上发表的摘要质量。假设是质量更高的材料会被选作口头报告。
将所有入选口头报告的63篇摘要与从664篇注册为壁报展示的摘要中随机抽取的样本（n = 63）进行比较。质量通过一份由33项标准组成的结构化问卷来衡量，这些标准分布在八个类别中：目的、研究设计、背景、研究对象、干预措施、测量、结果和结论。问卷由一位知晓研究目的的作者进行填写。最终得分范围为0（差）至1（优）。
摘要质量被认为中等良好。壁报展示和口头报告的总体平均质量得分分别为0.60和0.62（p = 0.086）。评分较低的标准为：研究对象、变量测量、地点和结论。
关于入选口头报告的摘要质量更高这一检验假设未得到证实。建议大会组织者在提高质量的同时，使用客观的质量标准来选择展示形式。
