Usatoff V, Waxman B P
Alfred Hospital, Prahran, Victoria, Australia.
Aust N Z J Surg. 1997 Jan;67(1):45-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1997.tb01893.x.
Abstracts form a major part of medical information dissemination and a measure by which papers are accepted for meetings. Concerns have been raised about the quality of abstracts presented to the Annual Scientific Congress (ASC) and second, about the validity of the term 'scientific' to describe this meeting.
A critical evaluation was made of all free paper abstracts in general surgery from the ASC 1996, using a standard assessment process. They were judged on presentation and content. A direct comparison was made to the content of abstracts from the Surgical Research Society of Australasia 1995(SRSA) meeting.
The ASC abstracts scored 87% (6.1/7.0) for presentation but with clear deficiencies. The score of 49% (7.4/15.0) for the content of the ASC abstracts was significantly less than the score of 65% (9.8/15.0) that was attained by the SRSA abstracts when assessed on content. (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < 0.000002.)
The quality of the presentation of abstracts was adequate but could clearly be improved, especially with regard to the specific instructions to authors. The ASC abstracts were significantly less scientific in content that those of the SRSA abstracts. The criteria used to select abstracts for the ASC should be reviewed and the title of the annual College meeting should be reconsidered.
摘要构成了医学信息传播的主要部分，也是论文能否被会议录用的一项衡量标准。人们对提交给年度科学大会（ASC）的摘要质量提出了担忧，其次，对用“科学的”一词来描述该会议的有效性也提出了质疑。
采用标准评估流程，对1996年ASC普通外科领域所有的自由论文摘要进行了批判性评估。从展示和内容两方面对它们进行评判。并与1995年澳大利亚外科研究协会（SRSA）会议摘要的内容进行了直接比较。
ASC摘要在展示方面的得分为87%（6.1/7.0），但存在明显不足。ASC摘要内容方面的得分是49%（7.4/15.0），显著低于SRSA摘要在内容评估时所获得的65%（9.8/15.0）的得分。（Wilcoxon秩和检验，P < 0.000002。）
摘要的展示质量尚可，但明显还有提升空间，尤其是在针对作者的具体说明方面。ASC摘要在内容上的科学性明显低于SRSA摘要。应重新审视用于选择ASC摘要的标准，并重新考虑学院年度会议的名称。
