The evaluation of abstracts presented at the 5th Congress of National Trauma and Emergency Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate demographics, methodological data and writing style of abstracts presented at the 5th Congress of National Trauma and Emergency Surgery. METHODS Study design, institutions and number of authors, appropriateness of the title, use of a structured abstract, word count, fluency, accuracy of the statistical evaluation, and conclusion-abstract accordance were assessed in 451 abstracts. RESULTS Nearly 49% of abstracts were retrospective and 29% were case reports in design. 33%, 26%, and 24% of abstracts were related to isolated organ, single system and multi-system injuries, respectively. Approximately two-fifths of presentations were university-based. Approximately one-third of presentations were multidisciplinary in origin. The mean number of authors was 5.6 +/- 1.8, and a statistical significance was found between abstract contributions from university versus other hospitals (p=0.001). Three-fourths of the abstracts had an appropriate title and 91% were structured. Word count was 100-250 in 57% and 250-500 in 42% of abstracts. Statistical analysis was used in only 19% of abstracts. Most of the abstracts were fluent. Conclusion-abstract accordance was present in 71% of the abstracts. CONCLUSION Our results indicate there are some deficiencies in the abstract writing process. The use of a structured abstract may intensify fluency and compliance to abstract writing guidelines. Clinical studies regarding multi-traumatized patient groups and experimental studies should be encouraged.