4.5 Article

Quality Evaluation of Abstracts Presented at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Annual Scientific Meeting

Journal

JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 1045-1048

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.05.020

Keywords

Abstracts; Society of Gynecologic Surgeons; Publication rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study Objective: To examine the rate of abstract publication from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Annual Scientific Meeting (SGSASM), 2004 to 2012. Study Design: This is a retrospective study in which all abstracts presented at the SGSASM from 2004 to 2012 were reviewed. Information was collected on oral (O), oral poster (OP), and poster (P) presentations. To evaluate for publication, all abstracts were searched for in the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate whether there were differences in distribution of published studies by first author location and affiliation and number of abstract authors. Design Classification: Canadian Task Force III. Measurements and Main Results: In total, 867 abstracts were reviewed, including all O, OP, and P presentations. Video and tips and tricks presentations were excluded. Overall rate of publication for all abstracts from 2004 to 2012 was 55.7%, comprising 82.4% for 0 presentations, 60.9% for OP presentations, and 41.4% for P presentations. There was no significant difference in location for published abstracts (p = .878), although published abstracts had a significantly greater number of authors (p < .001). Abstracts presented by authors from university programs were more likely to be published (p < .001). For all presentation types, the mean number of citations for published abstracts was different for the 9-year period (O, OP, and P: p < .001), with an overall decline toward the end of the assessment period. Conclusion: Over a 9-year period (2004-2012), the rate of abstract publication at the SGSASM was 55.7%, which is similar to other academic meetings. The comparability of this publication rate shows that the abstract selection committee is able to select high-quality research with limited information provided in abstract submissions. (C) 2015 AAGL. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available