BACKGROUND: Studies reveal that 44.5% of abstracts presented at national meetings are subsequently published in indexed journals, with lower rates for abstracts of medical education scholarship. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the quality of medical education abstracts is associated with subsequent publication in indexed journals, and to compare the quality of medical education abstracts presented as scientific abstracts versus innovations in medical education (IME). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medical education abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) 2009 annual meeting. MAIN MEASURES: Publication rates were measured using database searches for full-text publications through December 2013. Quality was assessed using the validated Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). KEY RESULTS: Overall, 64 (44%) medical education abstracts presented at the 2009 SGIM annual meeting were subsequently published in indexed medical journals. The MERSQI demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation range, 0.77-1.00) for grading the quality of medical education abstracts. MERSQI scores were higher for published versus unpublished abstracts (9.59 vs. 8.81, p = 0.03). Abstracts with a MERSQI score of 10 or greater were more likely to be published (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.47-6.89, p = 0.003). ). MERSQI scores were higher for scientific versus IME abstracts (9.88 vs. 8.31, p < 0.001). Publication rates were higher for scientific abstracts (42 [66%] vs. 37 [46%], p = 0.02) and oral presentations (15 [23%] vs. 6 [8%], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The publication rate of medical education abstracts presented at the 2009 SGIM annual meeting was similar to reported publication rates for biomedical research abstracts, but higher than publication rates reported for medical education abstracts. MERSQI scores were associated with higher abstract publication rates, suggesting that attention to measures of quality--such as sampling, instrument validity, and data analysis--may improve the likelihood that medical education abstracts will be published.
BACKGROUND: Studies reveal that 44.5% of abstracts presented at national meetings are subsequently published in indexed journals, with lower rates for abstracts of medical education scholarship. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the quality of medical education abstracts is associated with subsequent publication in indexed journals, and to compare the quality of medical education abstracts presented as scientific abstracts versus innovations in medical education (IME). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medical education abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) 2009 annual meeting. MAIN MEASURES: Publication rates were measured using database searches for full-text publications through December 2013. Quality was assessed using the validated Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). KEY RESULTS: Overall, 64 (44%) medical education abstracts presented at the 2009 SGIM annual meeting were subsequently published in indexed medical journals. The MERSQI demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation range, 0.77-1.00) for grading the quality of medical education abstracts. MERSQI scores were higher for published versus unpublished abstracts (9.59 vs. 8.81, p = 0.03). Abstracts with a MERSQI score of 10 or greater were more likely to be published (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.47-6.89, p = 0.003). ). MERSQI scores were higher for scientific versus IME abstracts (9.88 vs. 8.31, p < 0.001). Publication rates were higher for scientific abstracts (42 [66%] vs. 37 [46%], p = 0.02) and oral presentations (15 [23%] vs. 6 [8%], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The publication rate of medical education abstracts presented at the 2009 SGIM annual meeting was similar to reported publication rates for biomedical research abstracts, but higher than publication rates reported for medical education abstracts. MERSQI scores were associated with higher abstract publication rates, suggesting that attention to measures of quality--such as sampling, instrument validity, and data analysis--may improve the likelihood that medical education abstracts will be published.
Authors: Ayse A Atasoylu; Scott M Wright; Brent W Beasley; Joseph Cofrancesco; David S Macpherson; Ty Partridge; Patricia A Thomas; Eric B Bass Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Deborah Simpson; Ruth-Marie E Fincher; Janet P Hafler; David M Irby; Boyd F Richards; Gary C Rosenfeld; Thomas R Viggiano Journal: Med Educ Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: I Chalmers; M Adams; K Dickersin; J Hetherington; W Tarnow-Mordi; C Meinert; S Tonascia; T C Chalmers Journal: JAMA Date: 1990-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gail M Sullivan; Deborah Simpson; David A Cook; Nicole M DeIorio; Kathryn Andolsek; Lawrence Opas; Ingrid Philibert; Lalena M Yarris Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2014-09
Authors: Heidi M Egloff; Colin P West; Amy T Wang; Katie M Lowe; Jithinraj Edakkanambeth Varayil; Thomas J Beckman; Adam P Sawatsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Roberta W Scherer; Joerg J Meerpohl; Nadine Pfeifer; Christine Schmucker; Guido Schwarzer; Erik von Elm Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-11-20
Authors: Christopher R Stephenson; Brianna E Vaa; Amy T Wang; Darrell R Schroeder; Thomas J Beckman; Darcy A Reed; Adam P Sawatsky Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 2.463