ABSTRACT ASSESSMENT

FOR THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE SOCIETY OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGEONS OF

GREAT BRITAIN & IRELAND

 

Introduction

 

This document describes the mechanisms by which abstracts are assessed for presentation at the annual meeting.

 

This mechanism is designed to reduce inter-observer variation and provide a reliable and replicable basis for selection. It was used for the first time selecting abstracts for the 2001 AGM. I have modified it to reflect user feedback, further comments are welcome; graham.cooper@sth.nhs.uk

 

Abstract Assessment

 

There are 5 lead abstract assessors each co-opts 2 consultant members of the society as co-assessors. The assessors mark each abstract in their section. The marks are electronically collated and ranked. The abstract selection committee meets as soon as possible after the closing date. Abstracts are briefly reviewed and sequentially accepted in rank order until the scientific sessions are full. In practice the final places are usually competed for by a large number of abstracts with the same mark. These abstracts are reviewed in detail by the committee and ranked again. The final places are filled by the highest ranking of these abstracts.

 

 

Abstract Assessment Matrix

 

Criteria	0	1	2	3	4
Impact
Originality
Design / Data analysis
Conclusions
Total

 

 

Notes

 

CTSNet allows a score of 1 to 10 for each abstract. The matrix is designed to allow a total score of between 1 and 10.

 

The assessment matrix should be used for each abstract and the total score for each abstract should be entered on CTSNet.

 

 An explanation of the marking criteria is given below.

 

Marking Criteria

 

• Impact. Score 1,2, 3 or 4. This reflects the relevance of the abstract to a clinical cardiothoracic surgical meeting. Work should have direct clinical relevance to score 3 or 4.
• Originality. Score 0,1 or 2. Score 0 if the study repeats previous work, 1 if it extends previous work and 2 if it is completely original.
• Design / Data Analysis.  Score 0,1,2 or 3. In general a case series would score 0, case control series 1 and a randomised trial 2. For laboratory work a simple observational study would score 0, controlled experiments 1 or 2. If the data analysis is clear, uses appropriate statistics and allows for confounding variables add 1.
• Conclusion. Score 1 if the conclusions are clearly stated and supported by the results. Score 0 if this is not the case.

---