Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 27, 2026
Using a Chemical Biopsy for Graft Quality Assessment
Published on: June 17, 2020
Assessing the Quality of Evidence Presented at Annual General Meetings: A 5-Year Retrospective Study
Nasim Zamir1, Arian Gholami, Yasmin Jajarmi
1Dr. Zamir: Resident Physician, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Dr. Gholami: Resident Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Dr. Jajarmi: Resident Physician, Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Jackson Chornenki: Medical Student, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Patel: Professor of Medicine, Vice-Chair Education, William J. Walsh Chair in Medical Education, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Dore: Associate Professor, Departments of Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Director MSc Health Science Education, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Introduction:
Health care professionals rely on annual general meetings (AGMs) to obtain up-to-date information and practice guidelines relevant to their specialty. The majority of such information at meetings is presented through abstract sessions. However, the quality of the evidence presented during such abstract sessions is unclear. Standardized measures were applied to assess the quality of evidence of abstracts presented at the Canadian Society of Nephrology AGM over a 5-year period.
Methods:
Two authors independently reviewed all CSN AGM abstracts presented from 2012 to 2016. Using a schema published in 2011 by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM), each abstract was subsequently ranked based on the quality of evidence. Schema categories ranged from level I, representing the highest evidence quality, to level V, representing the lowest. The number of authors and the authors' institution affiliations were also collected from the abstracts, where available, or if affiliations were unclear, an internet search of the author was performed.
Results:
Six hundred forty-two articles were screened. In total, 70% (n = 450) met the inclusion criteria. When assessed, 15% of articles were level I (highest quality), 17% level II, 53% level III, 12% level IV, and 3% level V (lowest quality). A Jonckheere-Terpstra test demonstrated a significant trend of increasing quality of evidence (P < .05) and collaboration (P < .005) over the 5-year study period. There was a significant correlation between level of evidence and collaboration across years reviewed in the study, rs(98) = -0.226, P < .001.
Discussion:
The results indicate a consistent increase in quality of evidence and collaborative submissions over time. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first assessment and analysis of AGM presentation quality within internal medicine and its subspecialties. Documenting and monitoring changes in the quality of evidence with a standardized framework may offer valuable insight pertaining to the medical field and the research community.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
02:55The Evidence for Evolution
01:045-Number Summary
In a box plot, the minimum and maximum data values represent the lower and upper whiskers in the graph, and the median is designated as the center of the box in the chart. The first quartile and third...
01:19Quality of Water
01:05Quality Control
Quality control helps track data, visualize trends, and identify variations, making it easier to detect deviations that may affect the accuracy of an analysis. One way to do this is by generating a quality control chart, which...
01:19Quality Assurance
01:17Pulse amplitude and quality
A weak or absent pulse may indicate reduced cardiac output or poor left ventricular contraction, which can be signs of cardiovascular dysfunction or...