Qualitative abstracts at the pediatric academic societies meeting: Are they less likely to be accepted for presentation?

Eve R. Colson, Benard P. Dreyer, Janice L. Hanson, Linda Tewksbury, Matthew Johnson, Glenn Flores

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the 2010 Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) meeting that were exclusively qualitative, and to examine whether these abstracts were more or less likely than all others to be designated as platform, poster, or publish only. METHODS: The database of abstracts submitted to the 2010 PAS meeting was searched using qualitative terms. Authors reviewed abstracts to identify exclusively qualitative abstracts. The proportions and mean score ± standard deviation for qualitative abstracts and those designated platform, poster, or publish only were calculated. Student's t test was used to analyze mean differences; pairwise comparisons and odds ratios (ORs) were used to examine differences in the disposition of qualitative versus all other abstracts. The main outcome was the proportion of abstracts designated as platform, poster, or publish only. RESULTS: Of 4057 abstracts, 1.6% used only qualitative methods. Scores for qualitative and all other abstracts were 4.26 ± 0.60 and 3.88 ± 0.92, respectively (P < .001). The disposition of qualitative abstracts among platform, poster, and publish only differed from all other abstracts (P = .04). Compared with all others, qualitative abstracts had lower odds of platform presentation (OR 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.91), demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward publish only (OR 1.6; 95% CI 0.95-2.7), and were equally likely to be posters (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.65-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with all other abstracts, qualitative abstracts were about 3 times less likely to be chosen for platform presentations; in addition, they demonstrated a trend toward greater odds of publish only. These findings may be the result of inferior quality or an inadequate review process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)140-144
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Pediatrics
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2013

Fingerprint

Posters
Pediatrics
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Databases
Students

Keywords

  • Abstracts
  • Methods
  • Qualitative research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Qualitative abstracts at the pediatric academic societies meeting : Are they less likely to be accepted for presentation? / Colson, Eve R.; Dreyer, Benard P.; Hanson, Janice L.; Tewksbury, Linda; Johnson, Matthew; Flores, Glenn.

In: Academic Pediatrics, Vol. 13, No. 2, 03.2013, p. 140-144.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Colson, Eve R. ; Dreyer, Benard P. ; Hanson, Janice L. ; Tewksbury, Linda ; Johnson, Matthew ; Flores, Glenn. / Qualitative abstracts at the pediatric academic societies meeting : Are they less likely to be accepted for presentation?. In: Academic Pediatrics. 2013 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 140-144.
@article{e350a611782c4da08221bdb3d3faefef,
title = "Qualitative abstracts at the pediatric academic societies meeting: Are they less likely to be accepted for presentation?",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the 2010 Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) meeting that were exclusively qualitative, and to examine whether these abstracts were more or less likely than all others to be designated as platform, poster, or publish only. METHODS: The database of abstracts submitted to the 2010 PAS meeting was searched using qualitative terms. Authors reviewed abstracts to identify exclusively qualitative abstracts. The proportions and mean score ± standard deviation for qualitative abstracts and those designated platform, poster, or publish only were calculated. Student's t test was used to analyze mean differences; pairwise comparisons and odds ratios (ORs) were used to examine differences in the disposition of qualitative versus all other abstracts. The main outcome was the proportion of abstracts designated as platform, poster, or publish only. RESULTS: Of 4057 abstracts, 1.6{\%} used only qualitative methods. Scores for qualitative and all other abstracts were 4.26 ± 0.60 and 3.88 ± 0.92, respectively (P < .001). The disposition of qualitative abstracts among platform, poster, and publish only differed from all other abstracts (P = .04). Compared with all others, qualitative abstracts had lower odds of platform presentation (OR 0.36; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.91), demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward publish only (OR 1.6; 95{\%} CI 0.95-2.7), and were equally likely to be posters (OR 1.1; 95{\%} CI 0.65-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with all other abstracts, qualitative abstracts were about 3 times less likely to be chosen for platform presentations; in addition, they demonstrated a trend toward greater odds of publish only. These findings may be the result of inferior quality or an inadequate review process.",
keywords = "Abstracts, Methods, Qualitative research",
author = "Colson, {Eve R.} and Dreyer, {Benard P.} and Hanson, {Janice L.} and Linda Tewksbury and Matthew Johnson and Glenn Flores",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.acap.2013.01.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "140--144",
journal = "Academic Pediatrics",
issn = "1876-2859",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Qualitative abstracts at the pediatric academic societies meeting

T2 - Are they less likely to be accepted for presentation?

AU - Colson, Eve R.

AU - Dreyer, Benard P.

AU - Hanson, Janice L.

AU - Tewksbury, Linda

AU - Johnson, Matthew

AU - Flores, Glenn

PY - 2013/3

Y1 - 2013/3

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the 2010 Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) meeting that were exclusively qualitative, and to examine whether these abstracts were more or less likely than all others to be designated as platform, poster, or publish only. METHODS: The database of abstracts submitted to the 2010 PAS meeting was searched using qualitative terms. Authors reviewed abstracts to identify exclusively qualitative abstracts. The proportions and mean score ± standard deviation for qualitative abstracts and those designated platform, poster, or publish only were calculated. Student's t test was used to analyze mean differences; pairwise comparisons and odds ratios (ORs) were used to examine differences in the disposition of qualitative versus all other abstracts. The main outcome was the proportion of abstracts designated as platform, poster, or publish only. RESULTS: Of 4057 abstracts, 1.6% used only qualitative methods. Scores for qualitative and all other abstracts were 4.26 ± 0.60 and 3.88 ± 0.92, respectively (P < .001). The disposition of qualitative abstracts among platform, poster, and publish only differed from all other abstracts (P = .04). Compared with all others, qualitative abstracts had lower odds of platform presentation (OR 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.91), demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward publish only (OR 1.6; 95% CI 0.95-2.7), and were equally likely to be posters (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.65-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with all other abstracts, qualitative abstracts were about 3 times less likely to be chosen for platform presentations; in addition, they demonstrated a trend toward greater odds of publish only. These findings may be the result of inferior quality or an inadequate review process.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the 2010 Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) meeting that were exclusively qualitative, and to examine whether these abstracts were more or less likely than all others to be designated as platform, poster, or publish only. METHODS: The database of abstracts submitted to the 2010 PAS meeting was searched using qualitative terms. Authors reviewed abstracts to identify exclusively qualitative abstracts. The proportions and mean score ± standard deviation for qualitative abstracts and those designated platform, poster, or publish only were calculated. Student's t test was used to analyze mean differences; pairwise comparisons and odds ratios (ORs) were used to examine differences in the disposition of qualitative versus all other abstracts. The main outcome was the proportion of abstracts designated as platform, poster, or publish only. RESULTS: Of 4057 abstracts, 1.6% used only qualitative methods. Scores for qualitative and all other abstracts were 4.26 ± 0.60 and 3.88 ± 0.92, respectively (P < .001). The disposition of qualitative abstracts among platform, poster, and publish only differed from all other abstracts (P = .04). Compared with all others, qualitative abstracts had lower odds of platform presentation (OR 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.91), demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward publish only (OR 1.6; 95% CI 0.95-2.7), and were equally likely to be posters (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.65-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with all other abstracts, qualitative abstracts were about 3 times less likely to be chosen for platform presentations; in addition, they demonstrated a trend toward greater odds of publish only. These findings may be the result of inferior quality or an inadequate review process.

KW - Abstracts

KW - Methods

KW - Qualitative research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878130838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878130838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acap.2013.01.007

DO - 10.1016/j.acap.2013.01.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 23498080

AN - SCOPUS:84878130838

VL - 13

SP - 140

EP - 144

JO - Academic Pediatrics

JF - Academic Pediatrics

SN - 1876-2859

IS - 2

ER -