Identifying key components for an effective case report poster: an observational study

Understanding the Barriers and Benefits to Scholarly Writing Among Internal Medicine Residents: A Pilot Study of an Innovative Education Method

Background This study addresses the participation gap in scholarly activities among internal medicine residents. While the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education emphasizes the importance of these activities, the variability in their definition and support across residency programs presents a challenge. This study investigates these discrepancies and aims to identify the specific barriers and benefits residents perceive in scholarly writing, especially in case report writing, and to propose effective educational interventions. Methodology A voluntary online survey, pre- and post-educational intervention, was conducted among residents at Sparrow Hospital, Michigan State University. The intervention comprised a two-hour session focusing on case report writing, presentation skills, scientific literature searches, and research project engagement. Responses were obtained on a five-point Likert scale, and the data were analyzed as respective frequencies and percentages. Results Of 45 residents, 23 completed the pre-survey. With a response rate of 51% from the internal medicine residents, the post-intervention data revealed considerable improvement in the residents' understanding and appreciation of scholarly activities. There was a marked enhancement in their skills related to scientific literature search and in recognizing the benefits of scholarly engagement. Additionally, the intervention successfully increased their confidence in presenting scholarly work, networking, and identifying relevant venues for their research. Conclusions The study highlights the challenges residents face in scholarly activities, such as lack of training and mentorship. It suggests that focused workshops and mentorship can significantly enhance residents' research skills and confidence.

A Curriculum to Teach Learners How to Develop and Present a Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Residents are required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to complete a scholarly project during residency, but they may not have dedicated time or instruction to be able to successfully achieve this goal.

METHODS

In 2013 at Baystate Medical Center, we developed the Case Report Curriculum to guide internal medicine interns through the process of writing and presenting a case report. Core faculty and chief residents facilitate six sessions, which are scheduled throughout the year. Sessions combine large- and small-group discussion with facilitated independent work as well as postsession assignments and timely feedback from course facilitators. Topics include selecting a case report, crafting learning objectives, writing a discussion, authorship and creating a title, generating a poster, and presenting a poster. At the culmination of the conference series, interns present their completed case reports at an institutional academic day where judges critique and score their posters.

RESULTS

Over the past 4 years, 95%-100% of our interns have participated in the required curriculum and presented their posters. We found that the majority of interns go on to present additional scholarly works at regional and national meetings during their second and third postgraduate years. Due to the success of the curriculum, interns from additional programs within the institution now attend the conference series.

DISCUSSION

The Case Report Curriculum is a successful conference series that guides interns through the process of writing a case and can inspire additional scholarship during residency.

Decreasing the ceiling effect in assessing meeting quality at an academic professional meeting

BACKGROUND

The psychometric properties of evaluations at academic meetings have not been well studied.

PURPOSE

To explore the ceiling effect in the evaluation of quality of a professional meeting and whether a change in the scale labels would decrease the ceiling effect.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study at two national meetings (2009-2010), attendees completed the evaluation on paper forms or online (5-point Likert scale).

RESULTS

Of 1,064 evaluations, the mean session ratings was higher among respondents to the paper version in 2009 (4.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 to 4.3) as compared to online responders in 2009 (3.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 3.1) or online responders in 2010 (3.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 3.1)(p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A ceiling effect was present in the evaluation of an academic meeting. A change in the evaluation scale labels decreased the ceiling effect and increased evaluation variability.

Selecting the best clinical vignettes for academic meetings: should the scoring tool criteria be modified?

BACKGROUND

The performance of scoring tools to select clinical vignettes for presentation at academic meetings has never been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the psychometric properties of two scoring tools used to select clinical vignettes and to determine which elements are most helpful.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants submitting clinical vignette abstracts, Society of General Internal Medicine annual meetings (2006-2007).

MAIN MEASURES

The 2006 scoring tool had three criteria (clarity, significance, and relevance) with brief general descriptors. The 2007 modified tool had five criteria (clarity, significance, relevance, teaching value, and overall assessment) with more detailed descriptors.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 938 clinical vignette abstracts were submitted (484 in 2006; 454 in 2007); 59.5% (n=288) were accepted for presentation. Cronbach's alpha was 0.81 for the 2006 three-item tool and 0.95 for the 2007 modified five-item tool. Simplifying the five-item 2007 tool to three items (relevance, teaching value, overall assessment) yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.95. The agreement between the number of clinical vignettes accepted for presentation (2007) using the average score of the five items with the number that would have been accepted using the simplified three items (relevance, teaching value, overall assessment) was almost perfect, with kappa 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

Both scoring tools performed well, but a simplified tool with three items (relevance, teaching value, and overall assessment) and detailed descriptors was optimal; the simplified tool could improve the reviewer efficiency and quality of clinical vignettes presented at national meetings.

Poster presentations at medical conferences: an effective way of disseminating research?

This study aimed to ascertain the value of posters at medical meetings to presenters and delegates. The usefulness of posters to presenters at national and international meetings was evaluated by assessing the numbers of delegates visiting them and the reasons why they visited. Memorability of selected posters was assessed and factors influencing their appeal to expert delegates identified. At both the national and international meetings, very few delegates (< 5%) visited posters. Only a minority read them and fewer asked useful questions. Recall of content was so poor that it prevented identification of factors improving their memorability. Factors increasing posters' visual appeal included their scientific content, pictures/graphs and limited use of words. Few delegates visit posters and those doing so recall little of their content. To engage their audience, researchers should design visually appealing posters by presenting high quality data in pictures or graphs without an excess of words.

Writing abstracts and developing posters for national meetings

Presenting posters at national meetings can help fellows and junior faculty members develop a national reputation. They often lead to interesting and fruitful networking and collaboration opportunities. They also help with promotion in academic medicine and can reveal new job opportunities. Practically, presenting posters can help justify funding to attend a meeting. Finally, this process can be invaluable in assisting with manuscript preparation. This article provides suggestions and words of wisdom for palliative care fellows and junior faculty members wanting to present a poster at a national meeting describing a case study or original research. It outlines how to pick a topic, decide on collaborators, and choose a meeting for the submission. It also describes how to write the abstract using examples that present a general format as well as writing tips for each section. It then describes how to prepare the poster and do the presentation. Sample poster formats are provided as are talking points to help the reader productively interact with those that visit the poster. Finally, tips are given regarding what to do after the meeting. The article seeks to not only describe the basic steps of this entire process, but also to highlight the hidden curriculum behind the successful abstracts and posters. These tricks of the trade can help the submission stand out and will make sure the reader gets the most out of the hard work that goes into a poster presentation at a national meeting.

Scholarship opportunities for trainees and clinician educators: learning outcomes from a case report writing workshop

INTRODUCTION

Publishing a case report demonstrates scholarly productivity for trainees and clinician-educators.

AIM

To assess the learning outcomes from a case report writing workshop.

SETTING

Medical students, residents, fellows and clinician-educators attending a workshop.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Case report writing workshop conducted nine times at different venues.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Before and after each workshop, participants self-rated their perceived competence to write a case report, likelihood of submitting a case report to a meeting or for publication in the next 6-12 months, and perceived career benefit of writing a case report (on a five-point Likert scale). The 214 participants were from 3 countries and 27 states or provinces; most participants were trainees (64.5 %). Self-rated competence for writing a case report improved from a mean of 2.5 to 3.5 (a 0.99 increase; 95% CI, 0.88-1.12, p < 0.001). The perceived likelihood of submitting a case report, and the perceived career benefit of writing one, also showed statistically significant improvements (p = 0.002, p = 0.001; respectively). Nine of 98 participants published a case report 16-41 months after workshop completion.

DISCUSSION

The workshop increased participants' perception that they could present or publish a case report.

Temperature and pH optima for 21 species of thermophilic and thermotolerant fungi

A glucose-containing mineral medium supplemented with 0.01% yeast extract is described upon which all the species of thermophilic and thermotolerant fungi tested will grow. Thirteen of the 21 species do not require the yeast extract supplement for growth. Using this solid, supplemented mineral medium, the pH and temperature optima for growth of all strains were measured. No correlation was found between temperature optimum and pH optimum among members of the group tested.