Organizers of large scientific meetings are faced with the problem of whether and how to assign levels of evidence to studies that are presented. The present study was performed to investigate two hypotheses: (1) that session moderators and others can consistently Navitoclax ic50 assign a level of evidence to papers presented at national meetings, and (2) that there is no difference between the level of evidence provided by the author of a paper and the level of evidence assigned by independent third parties (e.g., members of the Program Committee).

Methods: A subset of papers accepted for presentation at the

2007 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting was used to evaluate differences in the levels of evidence assigned by the authors, volunteer graders who had access to only the abstract, and session moderators who had access to the full paper. The approved AAOS levels of evidence were used. Statistical tests of interrater correlation were done to compare the various raters to each other, with significance appropriately adjusted for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Interrater agreement was better than chance for most comparisons between different graders; however, the level of agreement ranged from slight to moderate (kappa = 0.16 to 0.46), a finding confirmed by agreement coefficient statistics. In general, raters had difficulty in agreeing whether a study comprised Level-I or Level-II evidence and authors graded the level of evidence of their own work more favorably than did others who graded the abstract.

Conclusions: When abstracts submitted to the AAOS Annual Meeting were rated, there was substantial Savolitinib mw inconsistency in the assignments of selleck products the level of evidence to a given study by different observers and there was some evidence that authors may not rate their own work the same as independent reviewers.

This has important implications for the use of levels of evidence in scientific meetings.”
“Efforts to stimulate technological innovation in the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) have resulted in the recent introduction of several novel diagnostic tools. As these products come to market, policy makers must make difficult decisions about which of the available tools to implement. This choice should depend not only on the test characteristics (e.g., sensitivity and specificity) of the tools, but also on how they will be used within the existing health care infrastructure. Accordingly, policy makers choosing between diagnostic strategies must decide: 1) What is the best combination of tools to select? 2) Who should be tested with the new tools? and 3) Will these tools complement or replace existing diagnostics? The best choice of diagnostic strategy will likely vary between settings with different epidemiology (e.g., levels of TB incidence, human immunodeficiency virus co-infection and drug-resistant TB) and structural and resource constraints (e.g., existing diagnostic pathways, human resources and laboratory capacity).