Articlegold2007

Reviewer agreement in scoring 419 abstracts for scientific orthopedics meetings

Rudolf Wilhelm Poolman · Lucien C M Keijser · M.C. de Waal Malefijt · Leendert Blankevoort · Forough Farrokhyar · Mohit Bhandari +1 more

22 citations0/0 files storedActa Orthopaedica

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Writing and Publishing Reliability and Agreement in Measurement

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The selection of presentations at orthopedic meetings is an important process. If the peer reviewers do not consistently agree on the quality score, the review process is arbitrary and open to bias. The aim of this study was: (1) to describe the inter-reviewer agreement of a previously designed scoring scheme to rate abstracts submitted for presentation at meetings arranged by the Dutch Orthopedic Association; (2) to test whether the quality of reporting of submitted abstracts increased in the years after the introduction of the scoring scheme; and (3) to examine whether a review process with a larger workload had lower interrater agreement. METHODS: We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to measure the level of agreement among reviewers using the International Society of the Knee (ISK) quality-of-reporting system for abstracts. Acceptance rate and quality of the abstracts are described. RESULTS: Of 419 abstracts, 229 (55%) were accepted. Inter-reviewer agreement to rate abstracts was substantial (0.68; 95% CI: 0.47-0.83) to almost perfect (0.95; 95% CI: 0.92-0.97) and did not change over the eligible time period. A smaller proportion of abstracts were accepted after 2004. The mean ISK abstract score (with a maximum of 100 points) for accepted abstracts ranged from 60 (95% CI: 58-63) to 64 (95% CI: 62-66). The mean ISK abstract score for rejected abstracts varied from 46 (95% CI: 40-51) to 51 (95% CI: 47-55). Average scores for accepted and rejected abstracts did not change with time. The degree of workload of the reviewers did not influence their level of agreement. INTERPRETATION: The ISK abstract rating system has an excellent interobserver agreement. Other scientific orthopedic meetings should consider adopting this ISK rating system for further evaluation in a local or international setting.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 1998Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis 2000Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?2003BARRIERS TO FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF ABSTRACTS AT ANNUAL ORTHOPAEDIC MEETINGS 1998Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?2005Is grey literature essential for a better control of publication bias in psychiatry? An example from three meta-analyses of schizophrenia 2003Reliability of a Structured Method of Selecting Abstracts for a Plastic Surgical Scientific Meeting

Cited by

2015Analysis of full-text publication and publishing predictors of abstracts presented at an Italian public health meeting (2005–2007)

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.