# A simplified, 2-question grading system for evaluating abstracts in orthopedic scientific meetings: a serial randomization study

## TL;DR

This study compares a new 2-question grading system for orthopedic abstracts to the current system and finds it scores higher but correlates poorly.

## Contribution

A simplified 2-question grading system for orthopedic abstracts is proposed and evaluated.

## Key findings

- The new system scores abstracts 3.3 points higher on average than the current system.
- The Pearson correlation between the two systems is poor at 0.38.
- The new system is preferred by almost all DOASC members for its inclusivity and simplicity.

## Abstract

Efficient abstract scoring for congress presentation is important. Given the emergence of new study methodologies, a scoring system that accommodates all study designs is warranted. We aimed to assess the equivalence of a simplified, 2-question abstract grading system with a more complex currently used system in assessing abstracts submitted for orthopedic scientific meetings in a serial randomized study.

Dutch Orthopedic Association Scientific Committee (DOASC) members were randomized to grade abstracts using either the current grading system, which includes up to 7 scoring categories, or the new grading system, which consists of only 2 questions. Pearson correlation coefficient and mean abstract score with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Analysis included the scoring of 195 abstracts by 12–14 DOASC members. The average score for an abstract using the current system was 60 points (CI 58–62), compared with 63 points (CI 62–64) using the new system. By using the new system, abstracts were scored higher by 3.3 points (CI 1.7–5.0). Pearson correlation was poor with coefficient 0.38 (P < 0.001).

The simplified abstract grading system exhibited a poor correlation with the current scoring system, while the new system offers a more inclusive evaluation of varying study designs and is preferred by almost all DOASC members.