The Consistency Between Scientific Papers Presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and their Subsequent Full-Text Publication
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: To determine the consistency of conclusions/statements made in podium presentations at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) with those in subsequent full-text publications. Also, to evaluate the nature and consistency of study design, methods, sample sizes, results and assign a corresponding level of evidence. DATA SOURCES: Abstracts of the scientific programs of the OTA from 1994 to 1997 (N = 254) were queried by using the PubMed database to identify those studies resulting in a peer-reviewed, full-text publication. STUDY SELECTION: Of the 169 articles retrieved, 137 studies were the basis of our study after the exclusion criteria were applied: non-English language, basic science studies, anatomic dissection studies, and articles published in non-peer-reviewed journals. DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS: Information was abstracted onto a data form: first from the abstract published in the final meeting program, and then from the published journal article. Information was recorded regarding study issues, including the study design, primary objective, sample size, and statistical methods. We provided descriptive statistics about the frequency of consistent results between abstracts and full-text publications. The results were recorded as percentages and a 95% confidence interval was applied to each value. Study results were recorded for the abstract and full-text publication comparing results and the overall conclusion. A level of scientific-based evidence was assigned to each full-text publication. RESULTS: The final conclusion of the study remained the same 93.4% of the time. The method of study was an observational case series 52% of the time and a statement regarding the rate of patient follow-up was reported 42% of the time. Of the studies published, 18.2% consisted of a sample size smaller than the previously presented abstract. When the published papers had their level of evidence graded, 11% were level I, 16% level II, 17% level III, and 56% level IV. CONCLUSIONS: Authors conclusions were consistent with those in full-text publications. Most studies were observational, less than half reported on the rate of patient follow-up. Many abstracts followed by publication had a smaller sample size in the published paper. Half of all studies were graded level IV evidence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,136 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».