REVIEWER AGREEMENT IN SCORING 419 ABSTRACTS FOR SCIENTIFIC ORTHOPEDIC MEETINGS

Abstract

Background: The selection of presentations at orthopedic meetings is an important process. If the peer reviewers do not consistently agree on the quality score, the review process is arbitrary and open to bias. The aim of this study was:

1. 1) To describe the inter reviewer agreement of a previously designed scoring scheme to rate abstracts submitted for presentation at the Dutch Orthopedic Association.

2. 2) To test if quality of reporting of submitted abstracts increased in the years after the introduction of the scoring scheme.

3. 3) To examine if a review process with a larger workload had lower inter rater agreement.

Methods: We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to measure the level of agreement among reviewers using the International Society of the Knee (ISK) abstract quality of reporting system. Acceptance rate and quality of the abstracts are described.

Results: Of 419 abstracts 229 (55%) were accepted. Inter-reviewer agreement to rate abstracts was substantial 0.68 (95%CI 0.47, 0.83) to almost perfect 0.95 (95%CI 0.92, 0.97) and did not change over the eligible time period. Less abstracts were accepted after 2004 (p = 0.039). The mean ISK abstract score, maximally 100 points, for accepted abstracts ranged from 60.4 (95%CI 57.7, 63.0) to 63.8 (95% CI 62.0, 65.7). The mean ISK abstract score for rejected abstracts varied from 45.8 (95%CI 40.3, 51.2) to 50.6 (95% CI 46.5, 54.8). Both scores for accepted and rejected abstracts did not change over time. Workload of the reviewers did not influence their level of agreement (p=0.167).

Interpretation: The ISK abstract rating system has an excellent inter observer agreement. Other scientific orthopedic meetings could adopt this ISK rating system for further evaluation in local or international setting.