AAEP Foundation Asks Veterinarians to Submit Cases for Laminitis Study
 First Laminitis Research Project study attempts
to identify ris... More »
AAEP Foundation/Markel Insurance Company Honor Top-Achieving Veterinary Students with Scholarships
 Eight outstanding equine veterinary students selected for schola... More »
New Jersey Practitioners Selected for 2011 Good Works for Horses Award
 The American Association of Equine Practitioners applauds New Je... More »
Convention Attracts 6,400 to San Antonio
 The 57th Annual Convention of the American Association of Equine... More »
Florida Practitioner Dr. John Mitchell Leads the AAEP in 2012
 New president inducted during the 57th Convention in San Antonio... More »
Reproduction Researcher Dr. Margo Macpherson Begins AAEP Board Service
 The American Association of Equine Practitioners welcomed Margo... More »
|
Abstract Grading CriteriaA goal of the Educational Programs Committee (EPC) in choosing abstracts for the AAEP annual meeting is to combine the best available clinical research with clinical experience and expertise to meet the needs of our patients. Below are the criteria the EPC will use when scoring papers. The endpoint is determination of the Overall Score for each abstract. To do this the following components should be evaluated separately and then as a conglomeration: Study Design, Study Quality, Consistency, Practicality, and Manuscript Quality. Study Design - multiplied by a weighting factor of 1 Scientific Papers - 10 points • Meta-analysis and/or systematic review (if performed on Level 1 or 2 studies only) – assign a score of 10 • Randomized controlled study – Only when subjects were randomly applied to a particular group. There needs to be a control group for comparison – assign a score of 8 • Cohort study – Two or more groups selected based on the exposure a procedure or agent before the outcome is known these groups are followed over time – if the study was done in a prospective manner assign a score of 8 if done in a retrospective manner assign a score of 6 • Case control study – patients have been identified based on a certain disease or outcome and then are matched with a control – If the study was done in a prospective manner assign a score of 6 if done in a retrospective manner assign a score of 4 • Case series – medical history on multiple patients with a specific condition or treatment – assign a score 3 • Case report – medical history on a single patient with a specific condition or treatment – assign a score of 1 • Expert opinion – No specific follow-up on but rather clinical experience – assign a score of 1 How to manuscripts – 3 points • Case series – medical history on multiple patients with a specific condition or treatment – assign a score 3 • Case report – medical history on a single patient with a specific condition or treatment – assign a score of 1 • Expert opinion – No specific follow-up on but rather clinical experience – assign a score of 1 Review articles Scale of 1 to 5, taking into consideration: Introduction, flow of thought, conclusions Literature review Relevance Interpretation of past findings (organization, clarity) Reference list (text books versus peer reviewed) Importance of subject Target audience-new or older practitioners Study Quality - 10 points multiplied by a weighting factor of 2 Assign the various scores: High quality = 10 Moderate quality = 8 Low-moderate = 6 Low = 4 Poor = 1 Scientific Papers: Specific factors to consider include: Appropriate study numbers and subjects Appropriate control population Appropriate use of statistics Relevance to audience (either currently or potential future relevance) Clarity How to: Specific factors to consider include: Clarity including use of appropriate photos, diagrams, graphs or tables, Usefulness to the practitioner Case management and follow up; Clinical relevance Applicability Review articles: Specific factors to consider include Organization Clarity Completeness of literature review Completeness of reference list (text books versus peer reviewed) Clinical relevance Expertise of author Take home message and conclusions Interpretation of past work, including balanced treatment of the evidence (i.e. pros and cons of research that is reviewed, discussion of WHY certain results may have been achieved) Relevance to audience Importance of subject Target audience-new or older practitioners Consistency - 10 points multiplied by a weighting factor of 0.5 This refers to how well the study aligns with the current body of knowledge. If there are important unexplained inconsistencies with other work (examples might be a difference in the direction of an effect or magnitude of an effect). Assign the various scores: Consistent with current knowledge = 10 Inconsistent with current knowledge but substantiated by data = 5 Contrary to current knowledge and unsubstantiated by data = 1 Practicality - 10 points multiplied by a weighting factor of 1.5 High = 8-10 Study findings have an immediate usefulness in your practice Moderate = 6- 7 Will consider using study findings in your practice Low-moderate = 4-5 You will require more assurance before implementing study findings in your practice Low = 1- 3 A significant amount of additional proof will be needed before study findings will be implemented in your practice. Manuscript quality - 10 points multiplied by a weighting factor of 0.5 High = 8- 10 No or extremely minimal editing is needed Moderate = 6- 7 Few minor changes including grammar, reference list format Low-moderate = 4- 5 Editing may include minor changes + spelling, typographical errors, additional support figures, moderate translation issues Low = 1- 3 Editing will require major revisions, clarifications and re-write Include in this score is quality of accompanying photographs, tables, graphs, radiographs, and images. Submitters have read instructions to authors and have followed the format. |
|
American Association of Equine Practitioners |
