A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Developing the art of scientific presentation. | LitMetric

Developing the art of scientific presentation.

J Hand Surg Am

Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5340, USA.

Published: December 2012

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aims to create a standardized tool for evaluating scientific presentations by reviewing literature on effective presentation components and organization.
  • Evaluations of 69 presentations at a medical conference were conducted by independent reviewers using a specific rating system assessing content, style, and overall quality.
  • Results showed high agreement among reviewers on content evaluation but varied opinions on delivery and structure, with speaker delivery and slide appearance being the most crucial factors for overall presentation quality.

Article Abstract

Purpose: Few guidelines exist regarding the most effective approach to scientific oral presentations. Our purpose is to (1) develop a standardized instrument to evaluate scientific presentations based on a comprehensive review of the available literature regarding the components and organization of scientific presentations and (2) describe the optimal characteristics of scientific presentations.

Methods: At the Sixty-sixth (2011) Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand, 69 presentations were evaluated by at least 2 independent observers. A rating instrument was developed a priori to examine presentation content (background, methods, results, and conclusions), presentation style (speech, structure, delivery, slide aesthetics), and overall quality. We examined correlations between reviewers' ratings of each component as well as overall perceived quality of the presentation using regression analysis. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to measure the degree of variation because of reviewer disagreement and identify the aspects of presentations that contribute to overall quality.

Results: Reviewer agreement was high for presentation content, and less than 1% of variation was caused by reviewer disagreement for background, methods, and conclusions. With respect to presentation style, reviewers agreed most frequently regarding speech and slide appearance, and only 9% and 13%, respectively, of the variation was caused by reviewer disagreement. Disagreement was higher for delivery and presentation structure, and 21% of the variation was attributable to reviewer disagreement. Speaker delivery and slide appearance were the most important predictors of presentation quality, followed by the quality of the presentation of conclusions and background information. Presentation of methods and results were not associated with overall presentation quality.

Conclusions: Distinct aspects of presentation content and style correlate with quality, which can be reliably and objectively measured. By focusing on selected concepts with visually simple slides, speakers can enhance their delivery and may potentially improve the audience's comprehension of the study findings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.09.018DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reviewer disagreement
16
presentation
12
presentation content
12
scientific presentations
8
background methods
8
methods conclusions
8
presentation style
8
delivery slide
8
quality presentation
8
variation caused
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!