Abstract Grading Criteria

Abstract Grading Criteria

A 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 ascore 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:

Highquality = 10

Moderatequality = 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 with current knowledge = 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.