Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Scoring Guide For Assessing Submitted Abstracts

    Uploaded by

    paru
    This document provides scoring guides for assessing abstracts in four categories: quality improvement/audit, case reports/case series, original research, and surveys. For each category, the guide lists 4-7 areas that will be scored from 1-5, with descriptors provided for each score. The total score for each abstract will be out of either 20 or 35 points depending on the category. Evaluators are instructed to use the full range of scores between 1-5 to differentiate abstract quality and ensure scores are spread out.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Scoring Guide For Assessing Submitted Abstracts

    Uploaded by

    paru
    16 views6 pages
    This document provides scoring guides for assessing abstracts in four categories: quality improvement/audit, case reports/case series, original research, and surveys. For each category, the guide lists 4-7 areas that will be scored from 1-5, with descriptors provided for each score. The total score for each abstract will be out of either 20 or 35 points depending on the category. Evaluators are instructed to use the full range of scores between 1-5 to differentiate abstract quality and ensure scores are spread out.

    Original Title

    Scoring_guide_for_assessing_submitted_abstracts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides scoring guides for assessing abstracts in four categories: quality improvement/audit, case reports/case series, original research, and surveys. For each category, the guide lists 4-7 areas that will be scored from 1-5, with descriptors provided for each score. The total score for each abstract will be out of either 20 or 35 points depending on the category. Evaluators are instructed to use the full range of scores between 1-5 to differentiate abstract quality and ensure scores are spread out.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    16 views6 pages

    Scoring Guide For Assessing Submitted Abstracts

    Uploaded by

    paru
    This document provides scoring guides for assessing abstracts in four categories: quality improvement/audit, case reports/case series, original research, and surveys. For each category, the guide lists 4-7 areas that will be scored from 1-5, with descriptors provided for each score. The total score for each abstract will be out of either 20 or 35 points depending on the category. Evaluators are instructed to use the full range of scores between 1-5 to differentiate abstract quality and ensure scores are spread out.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    Scoring guide for assessing abstracts

    Quality improvement (QI) and audit


    The following is a guide to scoring the QI and audit abstracts. Score 1-5 for each of the
    four areas below.
    n.b. All abstracts/posters should contain a statement about ethical/regulatory
    approval or written consent (for case reports) as a condition of
    acceptance/presentation. Please check that i) this is done and ii) the statement is
    appropriate for the content of the abstract/poster (if not, contact the Secretariat).
    Please use the full range of scores available in order to spread the scores i.e. i.e.
    any number between 1 and 5. The total should be out of 20.

    1. QI and audit methodology (1-5)


    1 Poor application of QI or audit methodology, i.e. predominantly data collection with
    little evidence of interventions to change practice or without clear standards to audit
    against or plans to improve practice.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 QI or audit methodology but some deficits in its use and room for improvement.
    Reasonable attempts to change practice and measure impact of change or planned
    re- audit. Mainly of local relevance.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Excellent QI or audit methodology, with cyclical/continuous data collection to assess
    effectiveness of interventions or re-audit cycles with demonstrable improved
    practice. Wider lessons.
    2. Clarity (1-5)
    1 Messy. Ambiguous. Disjointed. Tables/figures poorly explained. Incomplete
    information.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Adequate presentation. Fairly clear. Some incomplete information.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Excellent presentation. Clear. Ordered. Concise. No ambiguities.
    3. Significance/ impact/ relevance to clinical practice (1-5)
    1 Very poor significance and relevance to clinical practice.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Quite significant results. Of some importance to clinical practice.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly significant results. Very important and relevant to clinical practice.
    4. Novelty/originality (1-5)
    Score
    1 Very little originality. Of local interest only.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Some originality.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly unique.

    Updated: 2017
    Case report / case series
    The following is a guide to scoring the case report / case series abstracts. Score 1-5 for
    each of the four areas below.
    n.b. All abstracts/posters should contain a statement about ethical/regulatory
    approval or written consent (for case reports) as a condition of
    acceptance/presentation. Please check that i) this is done and ii) the statement is
    appropriate for the content of the abstract/poster (if not, contact the Secretariat).
    Please use the full range of scores available in order to spread the scores i.e.
    1,2,3,4 and 5. The total should be out of 20.

    1. Importance of message of case report (1-5)


    1 Minimal message and importance. Minor interest only.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Some tangible benefit to clinical practice.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Very important lesson for clinical practice. Shapes clinical practice.
    2. Clarity (1-5)
    1 Messy. Ambiguous. Disjointed. Tables/figures poorly explained. Incomplete
    information.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Adequate presentation. Fairly clear. Some incomplete information.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Excellent presentation. Clear. Ordered. Concise. No ambiguities. Includes all
    important information.
    3. Significance/ impact/ relevance to clinical practice (1-5)
    1 Very poor significance and relevance to clinical practice.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Quite significant. Of some importance to clinical practice.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly significant. Very important and relevant to clinical practice.
    4. Novelty/originality (1-5)
    Score
    1 Commonly reported event. Of local interest only.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Some originality. Been reported before but has some unique features.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly unique case. Never previously reported.

    Updated: 2017
    Original research
    The following is a guide to scoring the original research abstracts. Score 1-5 for each
    of the four areas below.
    n.b. All abstracts/posters should contain a statement about ethical/regulatory
    approval or written consent (for case reports) as a condition of
    acceptance/presentation. Please check that i) this is done and ii) the statement is
    appropriate for the content of the abstract/poster (if not, contact the Secretariat).
    Please use the full range of scores available in order to spread the scores i.e.
    1,2,3,4 and 5. The total should be out of 20.

    1. Methodology (1-5)
    1 Hypothesis unclear. Methodology doesn’t really test hypothesis or poorly
    conducted. Major design weaknesses. No mention of
    randomisation/blinding/statistical methodology.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Clear hypothesis. Methodology relevant with only minor weaknesses in design.
    Some mention of randomisation/blinding/statistical methodology, but not all.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Clear relevant hypothesis that the methodology accurately tests. Methodology well
    executed. Includes Info on randomisation/blinding/statistical methodology.
    2. Clarity (1-5)
    1 Messy. Ambiguous. Disjointed. Tables/figures poorly explained. Incomplete
    information.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Adequate presentation. Fairly clear. Some incomplete information.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Excellent presentation. Clear. Ordered. Concise. No ambiguities.

    3. Significance/ impact/ relevance to clinical practice (1-5)


    1 Very poor significance and relevance to clinical practice.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Quite significant results. Of some importance to clinical practice.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly significant results. Very important and relevant to clinical practice.
    4. Novelty/originality (1-5)
    Score
    1 Very little originality.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Some originality.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly unique. Never previously reported.

    Updated: 2017
    Surveys
    The following is a guide to scoring the survey abstracts. Score 1-5 for each of the four
    areas below.
    n.b. All abstracts/posters should contain a statement about ethical/regulatory
    approval or written consent (for case reports) as a condition of
    acceptance/presentation. Please check that i) this is done and ii) the statement is
    appropriate for the content of the abstract/poster (if not, contact the Secretariat).
    Please use the full range of scores available in order to spread the scores i.e.
    1,2,3,4 and 5. The total should be out of 20.

    1. Methodology (survey) (1-5)


    1 Survey with barely adequate response rate (50-60%). Local relevance only. Some
    ambiguity.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Reasonable survey with good representation and response rate (>70%) with some
    wider relevance to national practice. Clear unambiguous questions.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 National survey with good representation, response rate (>80%). Unambiguous.
    2. Clarity (1-5)
    1 Messy. Ambiguous. Disjointed. Tables/figures poorly explained. Incomplete
    information.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Adequate presentation. Fairly clear. Some incomplete information.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Excellent presentation. Clear. Ordered. Concise. No ambiguities. 95% CI given for
    percentages.
    3. Significance/ impact/ relevance to clinical practice (1-5)
    1 Very poor significance and relevance to clinical practice.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Quite significant results. Of some importance to clinical practice.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly significant results. Very important and relevant to clinical practice.
    4. Novelty/originality (1-5)
    Score
    1 Very little originality. Of local interest only.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Some originality.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly unique.

    Updated: 2017
    Safety (Annual Congress only)

    The following is a guide to scoring the safety abstracts. Score 1-5 for each of the seven
    areas below.

    n.b. All abstracts/posters should contain a statement about ethical/regulatory


    approval or written consent (for case reports) as a condition of
    acceptance/presentation. Please check that i) this is done and ii) the statement is
    appropriate for the content of the abstract/poster (if not, contact the Secretariat).
    Please use the full range of scores available in order to spread the scores i.e.
    1,2,3,4 and 5. The total should be out of 35.

    Clear aims and objectives (1-5)


    Score
    1 Aims unclear and poorly defined
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Some aims and objectives defined but some lack of clarity.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Very well defined aims and objectives.
    An innovative idea(s) (1-5)
    1 Some innovation but not an important safety issue.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Innovative approach to moderately important safety issue.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 New approaches to important patient safety issues.
    How the project was introduced and implemented (1-5)
    1 Poor implementation.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Effective implementation but poor engagement with main stakeholders.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Clear and effective implementation with good evidence of engagement with main
    stakeholders.
    How performance was measured and benchmarked (1-5)
    1 Poor attempt to collect supportive data and no change in practice.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Good supportive data and some change in practice.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Strong evidence of collection of outcome data to support practice. Evidence of changed
    outcomes.
    How information about the project was disseminated (1-5)
    1 Poor communication and feedback.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Reasonably effective communication strategy and feedback.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Strong communication strategy with feedback to stakeholders.

    Updated: 2017
    The sustainability of the project (1-5)
    1 Change in practice short lived.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Early change in practice but suggestion that effect weakening.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Evidence of a strong change in practice.
    Transferability of the project to other departments (1-5)
    1 Local relevance only.
    2 (falls between descriptors 1 and 3)
    3 Mainly local effect but some lessons to others.
    4 (falls between descriptors 3 and 5)
    5 Highly relevant to others.

    Updated: 2017

    You might also like