Analysis and Publication Rates of Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) Annual Meeting Abstracts 1995–2005

Abstract

These findings may serve as an indicator of the quality of the educational meeting. It may further stimulate efforts to develop programs to help program attendees achieve scholarly publications for work presented and serve as a benchmark against which future meetings may be judged.

Association Between Study Quality and Publication Rates of Medical Education Abstracts Presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting

“…Rates of peer-reviewed publication for medical education abstracts in this study were similar to previously reported rates for traditional biomedical research, 2 and were higher than rates reported for medical education scholarship presented at the Association of American Medical College's Research in Medical Education (RIME) conference (37 %), 4 the Canadian Conference on Medical Education (CCME, 32 %), 4 the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM) national meeting (35 %), 3 and the Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics (COMSEP) annual meeting (34 %) 5 . There may be several reasons for these differences in publication rates.…”

“…[3][4][5] The report on COMSEP abstracts spanned many years, showing a growing percentage of publication over time, which would MERSQI Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, UME undergraduate medical education, GME graduate medical education, CME continuing medical education, IME innovations in medical education affect the overall average publication rate. 5 The report on the CDIM abstracts also spanned many years (1995-2005), although the results did not demonstrate a significant increase in publication rates after 2002.…”

“…5 The report on the CDIM abstracts also spanned many years (1995-2005), although the results did not demonstrate a significant increase in publication rates after 2002. 3 Moreover, the CDIM abstract report is 10 years old, and an increase in quality may not have been experienced until more recently. 3 Similarly, the quality of SGIM abstracts may have increased over the years, but our study findings would reflect only the most recent (and potentially higher) publication rates and quality scores.…”

“…3 Moreover, the CDIM abstract report is 10 years old, and an increase in quality may not have been experienced until more recently. 3 Similarly, the quality of SGIM abstracts may have increased over the years, but our study findings would reflect only the most recent (and potentially higher) publication rates and quality scores. There may be other differences in abstract quality between our study and previous reports.…”

“…Three studies that have examined publication rates for medical education research abstracts revealed rates of 33 to 35 %, lower than those for biomedical research abstracts. [3][4][5] Publication in peer-reviewed journals is the cornerstone for promotion at academic medical centers. This has been widely recognized as a challenge for the academic advancement of clinician-educators, whose primary roles are teaching and providing clinical care.…”