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

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.

V. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Kongresi bildirilerinin deðerlendirilmesi

AMAÇ: V. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri özetlerinin öz yazým kýlavuzuna uygunluðu deðerlendirildi; demografi, metodoloji ve yazým tekniði yönünden incelendi. GEREÇ-YÖNTEM: Kongre kitapçýðýndaki 451 bildiri deðerlendirmeye alýndý. Deðerlendirilen parametreler; çalýþmanýn türü ve içeriði, çalýþmanýn yapýldýðý kurumlar, yazar sayýsý, baþlýk kullanýmýnýn uyumluluðu, yapýsal öz kullanýmý, sözcük sayýsý, dilin akýcýlýðý, uygun istatistiksel deðerlendirme ve sonuç-öz iliþkisiydi. BULGULAR: Çalýþmalarýn %49’u retrospektif, %29’u olgu sunumuydu. Bildirilerin %33’ü izole organ yaralanmasý, %26’sý tek sistem yaralanmasý, %24’ü çoklu sistem yaralanmasýna iliþkindi. Çalýþmalarýn %43’ü üniversite, %38’i devlet hastanesi kökenliydi. Çalýþmalarýn %40’ý genel cerrahiyle ilgiliydi, %29’u ise multidisiplinerdi. Çalýþmalardaki ortalama yazar sayýsý 5,6±1,8 idi; üniversite ve devlet hastaneleri arasýnda istatistiksel olarak anlamlý farklýlýk saptandý (p=0,001). Bildirilerin %91’inde yapýsal öz vardý, %57’si 100-250, %42’si ise 250-500 sözcük içermekteydi. Çalýþmalarýn %73’ü akýcý olarak deðerlendirildi. Tüm bildirilerin %19’unda istatistiksel yöntem uygulandýðý belirlendi. Bildirilerin çoðu akýcý idi. Ýstatistiksel analiz uygulama yönünden üniversite ve devlet hastaneleri arasýnda anlamlý fark saptandý (p=0,001). Sonuç-öz iliþkisi bildirilerin %71’inde yeterli olarak deðerlendirildi. SONUÇ: Bildiri özeti yazma konusunda bazý sorunlarýmýzýn olduðu saptanmýþtýr. Yapýsal öz kullanýmý, akýcýlýk ve yazým kurallarýna uyumu artýrmaktadýr. Özellikle çoklu yaralanlamalarý irdeleyen klinik çalýþmalar ve deneysel çalýþmalar özendirilmeli, bu yönde araþtýrmalar teþvik edilmelidir.