Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Nov 9;17(1):193.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1048-3.

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

Christopher R Stephenson  1 , Brianna E Vaa  2 , Amy T Wang  2   3 , Darrell R Schroeder  4 , Thomas J Beckman  2 , Darcy A Reed  5 , Adam P Sawatsky  2
Affiliations

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

Christopher R Stephenson et al. BMC Med Educ. .

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.

Keywords: Medical education; Medical education–outcomes research; Quality assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not Applicable

Consent for publication

Not Applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study Selection. Inclusion and exclusion of medical education abstracts (conference abstracts, journal abstracts, and journal articles) submitted to the 2009 Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Conference
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;18(2):MR000005. - PubMed
    1. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867–872. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267(3):374–378. doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03480030052036. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA. 1998;280(3):257–259. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.257. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sprague S, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P, 3rd, Cook DJ, et al. Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(1):158–163. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200301000-00024. - DOI - PubMed