Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Timmer A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC149448 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts.
Timmer Antje A Sutherland Lloyd R LR Hilsden Robert J RJ
BMC medical research methodology 20030211
<h4>Background</h4>The evaluation of abstracts for scientific meetings has been shown to suffer from poor inter observer reliability. A measure was developed to assess the formal quality of abstract submissions in a standardized way.<h4>Methods</h4>Item selection was based on scoring systems for full reports, taking into account published guidelines for structured abstracts. Interrater agreement was examined using a random sample of submissions to the American Gastroenterological Association, st ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts regarding patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to analyze the factors influencing the quality.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs on patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT statement for abstracts was used to evaluate the reporting quality of RCT abstracts.ResultsA total of 53 RCT abstracts were included. The CONSORT statement for abstracts showed that the average reporting rate of all items was 50.2%. The items with a lower reporting quality were mainly the trial design and the details of randomization and blinding (<10%). The mean overall adherence score across all studies was 8.68 ± 2.69 (range 4-13.5). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the higher reporting scores were associated with higher journal impact factor (P < 0.01), international collaboration (P = 0.04), and structured abstract format (P < 0.01).ConclusionsAlthough many RCTs on patients with COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall quality of reporting in the included RCT abstracts was suboptimal, thus diminishing their potential usefulness, and this may mislead clinical decision-making. In order to improve the reporting quality, it is necessary to promote and actively apply the CONSORT statement for abstracts.
| S-EPMC8736283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multi-locus profiles of genetic risk, so-called "genetic risk scores," can be used to translate discoveries from genome-wide association studies into tools for population health research. We developed a genetic risk score for obesity from results of 16 published genome-wide association studies of obesity phenotypes in European-descent samples. We then evaluated this genetic risk score using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort GWAS sample (N = 10,745, 55% female, 77% white, 23% African American). Our 32-locus GRS was a statistically significant predictor of body mass index (BMI) and obesity among ARIC whites [for BMI, r = 0.13, p<1?×?10(-30); for obesity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.57 (95% CI 0.55-0.58)]. The GRS predicted differences in obesity risk net of demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic information. The GRS performed less well among African Americans. The genetic risk score we derived from GWAS provides a molecular measurement of genetic predisposition to elevated BMI and obesity.[Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Biodemography and Social Biology for the following resource: Supplement to Development & Evaluation of a Genetic Risk Score for Obesity.].
| S-EPMC3671353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The aim of this paper is to present the development of the Feel4Diabetes Healthy Diet Score and to evaluate its clinical validity. METHODS:Study population consisted of 3268 adults (63% women) from high diabetes risk families living in 6 European countries. Participants filled in questionnaires at baseline and after 1?year, reflecting the dietary goals of the Feel4Diabetes intervention. Based on these questions the Healthy Diet Score was constructed, consisting of the following components: breakfast, vegetables, fruit and berries, sugary drinks, whole-grain cereals, nuts and seeds, low-fat dairy products, oils and fats, red meat, sweet snacks, salty snacks, and family meals. Maximum score for each component was set based on its estimated relative importance regarding T2DM risk, higher score indicating better quality of diet. Clinical measurements included height, weight, waist circumference, heart rate, blood pressure, and fasting blood sampling, with analyses of glucose, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides. Analysis of (co) variance was used to compare the Healthy Diet Score and its components between countries and sexes using baseline data, and to test differences in clinical characteristics between score categories, adjusted for age, sex and country. Pearson's correlations were used to study the association between changes from baseline to year 1 in the Healthy Diet Score and clinical markers. To estimate reproducibility, Pearson's correlations were studied between baseline and 1?year score, within the control group only. RESULTS:The mean total score was 52.8?±?12.8 among women and 46.6?±?12.8 among men (p?<? 0.001). The total score and its components differed between countries. The change in the Healthy Diet Score was significantly correlated with changes in BMI, waist circumference, and total and LDL cholesterol. The Healthy Diet Score as well as its components at baseline were significantly correlated with the values at year 1, in the control group participants. CONCLUSION:The Feel4Diabetes Healthy Diet Score is a reproducible method to capture the dietary information collected with the Feel4Diabetes questionnaire and measure the level of and changes in the adherence to the dietary goals of the intervention. It gives a simple parameter that associates with clinical risk factors in a meaningful manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02393872. Registered March 20, 2015.
| S-EPMC7201941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is important as readers often make their first judgments based on the abstracts. This study aims to assess the reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts published before and after the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guidelines.MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted to identify psychiatric RCTs published during 2005-2007 (pre-CONSORT) and 2012-2014 (post-CONSORT). Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts using a 18-point overall quality score (OQS) based on the CONSORT-A guidelines. Linear regression analysis was conducted to analyze factors associated with reporting quality.Among 1,927 relevant articles, 285 pre-CONSORT and 214 post-CONSORT psychiatric RCT abstracts were included for analysis. The mean OQS improved from 6.9 (range: 3-13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7-7.2) to 8.2 (range: 4-16; 95% CI: 7.8-8.5) after the CONSORT-A guidelines. Despite improvement, methods of randomization, allocation concealment, and funding source remained to be insufficiently reported (<5%) even after the release of CONSORT-A. High-impact general medical journals, multicenter design, positive outcome, and structured abstracts were associated with better reporting quality.The reporting quality in psychiatric RCT abstracts, although improved, remains suboptimal. To improve reporting quality of psychiatry RCT abstracts, greater efforts by both investigators and journal editors are required to enhance better adherence to the CONSORT-A guidelines.
| S-EPMC5678722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pilot trials are miniature researches carried out with the sole aim of acting as the precursor for larger more definitive studies. Abstracts are used to summarize and introduce the findings to the reading audience. There is substantive empirical evidence showing that abstracts, despite their important roles, are not informative enough, lacking the necessary details. This systematic survey was designed to assess the quality of reporting of heart failure pilot trial abstracts. The quality of reporting was defined as the completeness of reporting based on adherence to the CONSORT extension for reporting of pilot trial abstracts. We also identified factors associated with reporting quality.We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Scopus, and African-wide information databases for abstracts from heart failure pilot trials in humans published from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2016. These were assessed to determine the extent of adherence to CONSORT extension checklist for reporting of abstracts of pilot trials. We screened identified studies for inclusion based on title and abstract. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using the checklist. We used regression analysis to assess the association between completeness of reporting (measured as the number of items in the CONSORT extension checklist for reporting of abstracts in pilot trials contained in each abstract) and factors influencing the quality of the reports.Two hundred and twenty-eight (228) articles were retrieved, of which 92 met the inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT extension score was 8.3/16 (standard deviation 1.7); the least reported items were the source of funding (1% [1/92]), trial registration (13% [12/92]), randomization sequence (13% [12/92]), number randomized to each arm (16% [15/92]), and number analyzed in each arm (16% [15/92]). Multivariable regression analysis showed that pharmacological intervention pilot trials [incidence rate ratio (IRR)?=?0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81-0.97] were significantly associated with better reporting. Other factors such as structured abstract (IRR?=?1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.23) and CONSORT endorsement (IRR?=?1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.23) only showed minimal relationship with better reporting quality.The quality of reporting of abstracts of heart failure pilot trials was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention was significantly associated with better reporting. These findings are consistent with previous research on reporting of trials.
| S-EPMC5977467 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Adequate reporting is crucial in full-text publications but even more so in abstracts because they are the most frequently read part of a publication. In 2008, an extension for abstracts of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-A) statement was published, defining which items should be reported in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, we compared the adherence of RCT abstracts to CONSORT-A before and after the publication of CONSORT-A. METHODS:RCTs published in the five surgical journals with the highest impact factor were identified through PubMed for 2005-2007 and 2014-2016. Adherence to 15 CONSORT-A items and two additional items for abstracts of non-pharmacological trials was assessed in duplicate. We compared the overall adherence to CONSORT-A between the two time periods using an unpaired t test and explored adherence to specific items. RESULTS:A total of 192 and 164 surgical RCT abstracts were assessed (2005-2007 and 2014-2016, respectively). In the pre-CONSORT-A phase, the mean score of adequately reported items was 6.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.90-6.38) and 8.11 in the post-CONSORT-A phase (95% CI 7.83-8.39; mean difference 1.97, 95% CI 1.60-2.34; p?<?0.0001). The comparison of individual items indicated a significant improvement in 9 of the 15 items. The three least reported items in the post-CONSORT-A phase were randomization (2.4%), blinding (13.4%), and funding (0.0%). Specific items for non-pharmacological trials were rarely reported (approximately 10%). CONCLUSION:The reporting in abstracts of surgical RCTs has improved after the implementation of CONSORT-A. More importantly, there is still ample room for improvement.
| S-EPMC6722149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPoor diet quality is a major driver of both classical malnutrition and noncommunicable disease (NCD) and was responsible for 22% of adult deaths in 2017. Most countries face dual burdens of undernutrition and NCDs, yet no simple global standard metric exists for monitoring diet quality in populations and population subgroups.ObjectivesWe aimed to develop an easy-to-use metric for nutrient adequacy and diet related NCD risk in diverse settings.MethodsUsing cross-sectional and cohort data from nonpregnant, nonlactating women of reproductive age in 10 African countries as well as China, India, Mexico, and the United States, we undertook secondary analyses to develop novel metrics of diet quality and to evaluate associations between metrics and nutrient intakes and adequacy, anthropometry, biomarkers, type 2 diabetes, and iteratively modified metric design to improve performance and to compare novel metric performance to that of existing metrics.ResultsWe developed the Global Diet Quality Score (GDQS), a food-based metric incorporating a more comprehensive list of food groups than most existing diet metrics, and a simple means of scoring consumed amounts. In secondary analyses, the GDQS performed comparably with the Minimum Dietary Diversity - Women indicator in predicting an energy-adjusted aggregate measure of dietary protein, fiber, calcium, iron, zinc, vitamin A, folate, and vitamin B12 adequacy and with anthropometric and biochemical indicators of undernutrition (including underweight, anemia, and serum folate deficiency), and the GDQS also performed comparably or better than the Alternative Healthy Eating Index - 2010 in capturing NCD-related outcomes (including metabolic syndrome, change in weight and waist circumference, and incident type 2 diabetes).ConclusionsThe simplicity of the GDQS and its ability to capture both nutrient adequacy and diet-related NCD risk render it a promising candidate for global monitoring platforms. Research is warranted to validate methods to operationalize GDQS assessment in population surveys, including a novel application-based 24-h recall system developed as part of this project.
| S-EPMC8542096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hepatitis delta is considered the most severe form of viral hepatitis, but variables associated with disease progression are poorly defined. This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with worse clinical outcome in patients with hepatitis delta and to develop a clinical score to determine their risk of experiencing liver-related morbidity or mortality. We followed 75 HBsAg-anti-HDV-positive patients with hepatitis delta for up to 16 years (median 5 years). The baseline-event-anticipation score (BEA score) was developed based on variables associated with the development of liver-related clinical complications. Age, region of origin, presence of cirrhosis, albumin, INR, hyperbilirubinemia and thrombocytopenia were all associated with the development of an event in the training cohort. The BEA score included age, sex, region of origin, bilirubin, platelets and INR. Points were allocated according to hazard ratios, and three risk groups were defined: BEA-A mild risk, BEA-B moderate risk and BEA-C high risk. Hazard ratios of BEA-B and BEA-C patients for liver-related clinical endpoints were 9.01 and 25.27 vs BEA-A with an area under curve of the receiving operating characteristic curve of 0.88. The accuracy of the BEA score was confirmed in two independent validation cohorts followed in Barcelona (n = 77) and Düsseldorf (n = 62). Delta hepatitis is associated with a very severe long-term outcome. The BEA score is easy to apply and predicts with a very high accuracy the development of liver-related complications in patients with hepatitis delta.
| S-EPMC4263246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Employees insured in pension insurance, who are incapable of working due to ill health, are entitled to a disability pension. To assess whether an individual meets the medical requirements to be considered as disabled, a work capacity evaluation is conducted. However, there are no official guidelines on how to perform an external quality assurance for this evaluation process. Furthermore, the quality of medical reports in the field of insurance medicine can vary substantially, and systematic evaluations are scarce. Reliability studies using peer review have repeatedly shown insufficient ability to distinguish between high, moderate and low quality. Considering literature recommendations, we developed an instrument to examine the quality of medical experts' reports. METHODS:The peer review manual developed contains six quality domains (formal structure, clarity, transparency, completeness, medical-scientific principles, and efficiency) comprising 22 items. In addition, a superordinate criterion (survey confirmability) rank the overall quality and usefulness of a report. This criterion evaluates problems of inner logic and reasoning. Development of the manual was assisted by experienced physicians in a pre-test. We examined the observable variance in peer judgements and reliability as the most important outcome criteria. To evaluate inter-rater reliability, 20 anonymous experts' reports detailing the work capacity evaluation were reviewed by 19 trained raters (peers). Percentage agreement and Kendall's W, a reliability measure of concordance between two or more peers, were calculated. A total of 325 reviews were conducted. RESULTS:Agreement of peer judgements with respect to the superordinate criterion ranged from 29.2 to 87.5%. Kendall's W for the quality domain items varied greatly, ranging from 0.09 to 0.88. With respect to the superordinate criterion, Kendall's W was 0.39, which indicates fair agreement. The results of the percentage agreement revealed systemic peer preferences for certain deficit scale categories. CONCLUSION:The superordinate criterion was not sufficiently reliable. However, in comparison to other reliability studies, this criterion showed an equivalent reliability value. This report aims to encourage further efforts to improve evaluation instruments. To reduce disagreement between peer judgments, we propose the revision of the peer review instrument and the development and implementation of a standardized rater training to improve reliability.
| S-EPMC6688267 | biostudies-other
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Ginsenoside Rg3 is a natural active ingredient that is extracted from Korean red ginseng root. It elevates therapeutic effect of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, but the study found that the application of Rg3 is heavily limited by its low bioavailability and poor absorption via oral administration. METHOD: Rg3-loaded PEG-PLGA-NPs (Rg3-NPs) were prepared by the modified spontaneous emulsification solvent diffusion (SESD) method, and the physicochemical characteristics of Rg3-NPs were investigated in our study. We treated primary glioblastoma with 50 µM Rg3-NPs for 48h. We then used gene expression arrays (Illumina) for genome-wide expression analysis and validated the results for genes of interest by means of Real-Time PCR. Functional annotations were then performed using the DAVID and KEGG online tools. RESULTS: MTT shows that the growth of cells can be significantly inhibited by Rg3-NPs in a dose-dependence manner. FCM test shows Rg3-NPs can be released from the conjugate nanoparticle and react with the genes in the cell nuclei causing changes in the gene molecules. We also found that cancer cells treated with Rg3-NPs undergo cell-cycle arrest at different checkpoints. This arrest was associated with a decrease in the mRNA levels of core regulatory genes as determined by microarray-analysis and verified by Real-Time PCR. Furthermore, Rg3-NPs induced the expression of apoptotic and anti-migratory proteins p53 in cell lines. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study, together with the results of earlier studies show that Rg3-NPs targets genes involved in the progression of the M-phase of the cell cycle. It is associated with several important pathways, which include apoptosis (p53). Rg3-NPs may be a potent cell-cycle regulation drug targeting the M-phase in glioblastoma cell lines.
| S-EPMC3635504 | biostudies-literature