Abstract
Background
There are currently no validated guidelines to assess the quality of the content and
the delivery style of scientific podium surgical presentations. We have developed
a simple, short, and reliable instrument to objectively assess the overall quality
of scientific podium presentations.
Methods
A simple and efficient rating instrument was developed to assess the scientific content
and presentation style/skills of the surgical residents' presentations from 1996 to
2013. Absolute and consistency agreement for the different sections of the instrument
was determined and assessed overtime, by stage of the project and study design. Intraclass
correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and reported
using a mixed-effects model.
Results
Inter-rater reliability for both absolute and consistency agreement was substantial
for total score and for each of the 3 sections of the instrument. The absolute agreement
for the overall rating of the presentations was .87 (.63 to .98) and .78 (.50 to .95),
and the consistency agreement was .90 (.70 to .99) and .87 (.67 to .97) for the 2012
and 2013 institutional research presentations, respectively. Rater agreement for evaluating
project stage and different study designs varied from .70 to .81 and was consistent
over the years. The consistency agreement in rating of the presentation was .77 for
both faculty and resident raters.
Conclusions
Standardized methodological assessment of research presentations (SHARP) instrument
rates the scientific quality of the research and style of the delivered presentation.
It is highly reliable in scoring the quality of the all study designs regardless of
their stage. We recommend that researchers focus on presenting the key concepts and
significant elements of their evidence using visually simple slides in a professionally
engaging manner for effective delivery of their research and better communication
with the audience.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to The American Journal of SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Teaching evidence-based medicine on a busy hospitalist service: residents rate a pilot curriculum.Acad Med. 2005; 80: 607-609
- Developing the art of scientific presentation.J Hand Surg Am. 2012; 37: 2580-2588.e1–2
- Poster presentations at medical conferences: an effective way of disseminating research?.Clin Med. 2011; 11: 138-141
- Scoring posters at scientific meetings: first impressions count.J R Soc Med. 2004; 97: 340-341
- The quality of podium presentations at the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons: does a decade make a difference?.Dis Colon Rectum. 2005; 48: 1569-1572
- Quality of reporting in poster versus oral presentations at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2008 conference in Chicago.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 125: 219e-221e
- Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 47
- Observational studies and STROBE reporting quality in plastic surgical conference abstracts.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 128: 108e-109e
- Clinical trial quality and reporting quality in American Society of Plastic Surgeons and German conference abstracts: a transatlantic perspective.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 126: 281e-282e
- Reporting quality of conference abstracts on randomised controlled trials in gerontology and geriatrics: a cross-sectional investigation.Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011; 105: 459-462
- Reviewer agreement in scoring 419 abstracts for scientific orthopedics meetings.Acta Orthop. 2007; 78: 278-284
- Tips for better visual elements in posters and podium presentations.Educ Health (Abingdon). 2010; 23: 267
- How to present a paper at a scientific meeting.West Afr J Med. 2004; 23: 260-263
- Ten steps to successful conference presentations.Br J Nurs. 2007; 16: 402-404
- A rating scale to evaluate research posters.Nurse Educ. 1991; 16: 11-15
- Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.Fam Med. 2005; 37: 360-363
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.JAMA. 1996; 276: 637-639
- Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis.J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45: 255-265
- Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73: 712-716
- Health Measurement Scales.Oxford University Press, Oxford2006: 126-152
- Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application.Am J Med. 2006; 119: 166.e7-166.e16
- Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions.Ann Surg. 2010; 251: 409-416
- Does a “Level I Evidence” rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6: 44
- The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84-A: 388-396
- A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting coronary artery bypass grafting trials.Can J Surg. 2007; 50: 266-277
- Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.BMJ. 2004; 328: 22-24
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 06, 2014
Received in revised form:
August 21,
2013
Received:
July 29,
2013
Footnotes
There were no relevant financial relationships or any sources of support in the form of grants, equipment, or drugs.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
