Selecting the Best Clinical Vignettes for Academic Meetings: Should the Scoring Tool Criteria be Modified?

Abstract

BACKGROUND:The performance of scoring tools to select clinical vignettes for presentation at academic meetings has never been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To measure the psychometric properties of two scoring tools used to select clinical vignettes and to determine which elements are most helpful. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. (2007) using the average score of the five items with the number that would have been accepted using the simplified three items (relevance, teaching value, overall assessment) was almost perfect, with kappa 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Both scoring tools performed well, but a simplified tool with three items (relevance, teaching value, and overall assessment) and detailed descriptors was optimal; the simplified tool could improve the reviewer efficiency and quality of clinical vignettes presented at national meetings.KEY WORDS: professional competence; internship and residency; education medical/methods; educational measurement/methods/ standards; congresses as topic; reproducibility of results.

A Practical Guide to Writing and Reviewing Abstracts for Pediatric Academic Meetings

“…Use of standardized abstract and journal article rating guidelines can help to reduce some of the subjectivity associated with the abstract review process and can lead to improved concordance among abstract reviewers. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] These guidelines should provide a useful framework for junior faculty and trainees participating in the abstract review process and also for investigators writing their first abstracts. …”

“…6,7 However, several studies have examined the development of abstract and journal article rating criteria and have found that the use of a standardized scoring process is feasible and can lead to better interrater agreement. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] The highest levels of interrater reliability occur with the more objective criteria such as those focusing on methods and analysis. 3,11,15 The objectives of this commentary are to provide a guide on how to write an abstract for an academic meeting and an example of a structured abstract scoring system with relative weights of importance for the criteria, with the highest weight placed on methods and analysis.…”

Survivorship - lebenslange Begleitung von Krebspatienten

“…Dabei ist gut belegt, dass die körperliche Aktivität im Rahmen einer Krebserkrankung zunächst abnimmt [10]. Viele Patienten nehmen parallel dazu an Gewicht zu [11], was unter anderem mit einer Fatigue-Symptomatik, mit der spezifischen medikamentösen Behandlung (hormonell wirksame Therapien) oder auch mit einer bewusst reduzierten körperlichen Aktivität aus Angst oder Unkenntnis der Auswirkungen von Sport zusammenhängen kann. Es verwundert deshalb nicht, dass von den 1879 Teilnehmern der von uns vorgenommenen Patientenbefragung 40% übergewichtig waren und 30% eine Adipositas hatten.…”

Validation of a scoring tool to select clinical vignettes

“…Clinicians and medical trainees often present clinical vignettes at academic meetings in order to learn clinical medicine, illustrate clinical reasoning and identify new diseases, among other reasons. After extensive formative development, we have devised the only scoring tool to be used in selecting clinical vignettes for presentation at academic meetings . The scoring tool refers to five domains: clarity; relevance to clinical practice; relevance to general internal medicine; teaching value, and overall assessment .…”

“…After extensive formative development, we have devised the only scoring tool to be used in selecting clinical vignettes for presentation at academic meetings . The scoring tool refers to five domains: clarity; relevance to clinical practice; relevance to general internal medicine; teaching value, and overall assessment . We have also shown that a simplified three‐item version preserved the psychometric properties of the tool.…”