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
. 2023 Apr 17;69(4):e20220888.
doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.20220888. eCollection 2023.

Criteria for selection and classification of studies in medical events

René Aloisio da Costa Vieira  1 , Regis Resende Paulinellli  2 , Fábio Francisco Oliveira Rodrigues  3 , Marise Amaral Rebouças Moreira  2 , Ricardo Caponero  4 , Eduardo Carvalho Pessoa  1 , Rosemar Macedo Sousa Rahal  2 , Gil Facina  5 , Ruffo de Freitas Junior  2
Affiliations

Criteria for selection and classification of studies in medical events

René Aloisio da Costa Vieira et al. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). .

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of study methodology and evaluation type on the selection of studies during the presentation of scientific events.

Methods: A prospective, observational, transversal approach was applied to a cohort of studies that were submitted for presentation at the 2021 Brazilian Breast Cancer Symposium. Three forms of criteria (CR) were presented. CR1 was based on six criteria (method, ethics, design, originality, promotion, and social contribution); CR2 graded the studies from 0 to 10 for each study, and CR3 was based on five criteria (presentation, method, originality, scientific knowledge, and social contribution). To evaluate the item correlation, Cronbach's alpha and factorial analysis were performed. For the evaluation of differences between the tests, we used the Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn tests. To determine the differences in the study classifications, we used the Friedman test and Namenyi's all-pairs comparisons.

Results: A total of 122 studies were evaluated. There was also a good correlation with the items concerning criterion 1 (α=0.730) and 3 (α=0.937). Evaluating CR1 methodology, study design and social contribution (p=0.741) represents the main factor and CR3 methodology, and the scientific contribution (p=0.994) represents the main factor. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed differences in the results (p<0.001) for all the criteria that were used [CR1-CR2 (p<0.001), CR1-CR3 (p<0.001), and CR2-CR3 (p=0.004)]. The Friedman test showed differences in the ranking of the studies (p<0.001) for all studies (p<0.01).

Conclusion: Methodologies that use multiple criteria show good correlation and should be taken into account when ranking the best studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: the authors declare there is no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Adjusted variation of position among the 10 best studies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Foster C, Wager E, Marchington J, Patel M, Banner S, Kennard NC, et al. Good practice for conference abstracts and presentations: GPCAP. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:11–11. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0070-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Timmer A, Sutherland LR, Hilsden RJ. Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:2–2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oliveira LR, Figueiredo AA, Choi M, Ferrarez CE, Bastos AN, Netto JM. The publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2003 urological Brazilian meeting. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2009;64(4):345–349. doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322009000400013. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rahal RMS, Nascimento S, Soares LR, Freitas R., Junior Publication rate of abstracts on breast cancer presented at different scientific events in Brazil. Mastology. 2020;30(1):e20200048. doi: 10.29289/2594539420202020200048. - DOI
    1. Gürses İA, Gayretli Ö, Gürtekin B, Öztürk A. Publication rates and inconsistencies of the abstracts presented at the national anatomy congresses in 2007 and 2008. Balkan Med J. 2017;34(1):64–70. doi: 10.4274/balkanmedj.2016.0360. - DOI - PMC - PubMed