Sawatsky Adam P, Beckman Thomas J, Edakkanambeth Varayil Jithinraj, Mandrekar Jayawant N, Reed Darcy A, Wang Amy T
Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA,
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Aug;30(8):1172-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3269-7.
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.
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).
Retrospective cohort study.
Medical education abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) 2009 annual meeting.
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).
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 MERSQI scores were higher for published versus unpublished abstracts (9.59 vs. 8.81, p = 0.03).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).
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.
研究表明,在全国性会议上发表的摘要中,有44.5%随后发表在索引期刊上,医学教育奖学金摘要的发表率较低。
我们试图确定医学教育摘要的质量是否与随后在索引期刊上发表有关,并比较作为科学摘要呈现的医学教育摘要与医学教育创新(IME)摘要的质量。
回顾性队列研究。
在2009年美国普通内科医师学会(SGIM)年会上发表的医学教育摘要。
通过检索数据库以获取截至2013年12月的全文出版物来测量发表率。使用经过验证的医学教育研究质量工具(MERSQI)评估质量。
总体而言,在2009年SGIM年会上发表的64篇(44%)医学教育摘要随后发表在索引医学期刊上。MERSQI在对医学教育摘要质量进行评分时显示出良好的评分者间信度(组内相关系数范围为0.77 - 1.00)。已发表摘要的MERSQI得分高于未发表摘要(9.59对8.81,p = 0.03)。MERSQI得分10分及以上的摘要更有可能发表(比值比3.18,95%置信区间1.47 - 6.89,p = 0.003)。科学摘要的MERSQI得分高于IME摘要(9.88对8.31,p < 0.001)。科学摘要的发表率更高(42篇[66%]对37篇[46%],p = 0.02),口头报告的发表率也更高(15篇[23%]对6篇[8%],p = 0.01)。
在2009年SGIM年会上发表的医学教育摘要的发表率与报道的生物医学研究摘要的发表率相似,但高于报道的医学教育摘要的发表率。MERSQI得分与更高的摘要发表率相关,这表明关注质量指标——如抽样、工具效度和数据分析——可能会提高医学教育摘要发表的可能性。