Articlegold2017

Conference presentation to publication: a retrospective study evaluating quality of abstracts and journal articles in medical education research

Christopher R. Stephenson · Brianna E. Vaa Stelling · Amy T. Wang · Darrell R. Schroeder · Thomas J. Beckman · Darcy A. Reed +1 more

19 citations0/0 files storedBMC Medical Education

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

Academic Writing and Publishing Innovations in Medical Education Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence regarding the comparative quality of abstracts and articles in medical education research. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI), which was developed to evaluate the quality of reporting in medical education, has strong validity evidence for content, internal structure, and relationships to other variables. We used the MERSQI to compare the quality of reporting for conference abstracts, journal abstracts, and published articles. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all 46 medical education research abstracts submitted to the Society of General Internal Medicine 2009 Annual Meeting that were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. We compared MERSQI scores of the abstracts with scores for their corresponding published journal abstracts and articles. Comparisons were performed using the signed rank test. RESULTS: Overall MERSQI scores increased significantly for published articles compared with conference abstracts (11.33 vs 9.67; P < .001) and journal abstracts (11.33 vs 9.96; P < .001). Regarding MERSQI subscales, published articles had higher MERSQI scores than conference abstracts in the domains of sampling (1.59 vs 1.34; P = .006), data analysis (3.00 vs 2.43; P < .001), and validity of evaluation instrument (1.04 vs 0.28; P < .001). Published articles also had higher MERSQI scores than journal abstracts in the domains of data analysis (3.00 vs 2.70; P = .004) and validity of evaluation instrument (1.04 vs 0.26; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the quality of medical education abstracts and journal articles using the MERSQI. Overall, the quality of articles was greater than that of abstracts. However, there were no significant differences between abstracts and articles for the domains of study design and outcomes, which indicates that these MERSQI elements may be applicable to abstracts. Findings also suggest that abstract quality is generally preserved from original presentation to publication.

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 — 19 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Publication bias in clinical research 2006Current Concepts in Validity and Reliability for Psychometric Instruments: Theory and Application 2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2007Association Between Funding and Quality of Published Medical Education Research 1992Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results 2015Appraising the Quality of Medical Education Research Methods 2003BARRIERS TO FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF ABSTRACTS AT ANNUAL ORTHOPAEDIC MEETINGS 2008Predictive Validity Evidence for Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument Scores: Quality of Submissions to JGIM’s Medical Education Special Issue

Cited by

2021Full Abstract to Published Manuscript: Evaluation of the Scientific Impact of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Conference

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.