Background: Quality of reporting in plastic surgery congress abstracts is likely to influence clinical decision making. Often, poster presentations are thought to have potentially minor impact and inferior abstract quality in contrast to oral presentations at plastic surgery conferences.
Hypothesis: The quality of reporting in abstracts as well as the study design presented as oral presentation are higher than for poster presentations at the ASPS 2008 meeting in Chicago.
Methods: 65 oral abstracts and 94 poster abstracts from the American Society of Plastic Surgery (ASPS) conference 2008 were analysed independently by two researchers for study type as well as reporting quality of the abstract. Statistical Methods: Descriptive statistics consisted of the calculation of frequencies and percentages. T-test was used to calculate and compare the CONSORT and STROBE score. The Chi-square tests were applied. Fisher exact tests were used in the analysis of categorical data where sample sizes were small. Data were analysed using the SPSS statistical software package Version 14.0 and STATA version 10.0.
Main outcome measures: Scores of 17 CONSORT criteria for randomized-controlled trials (RCT), or 22 STROBE criteria for observational studies were determined for clinical studies. Study design was determined based on evidence-based medicine criteria.
Funding: None.
Results: 68% oral presentations and 81% poster presentations were prospective studies (p=0.058). Randomized-controlled trials were similar frequent for oral (5%) and poster presentations (4%, p=0.832). 31% oral and 21% poster presentations were experimental non-clinical studies. No differences in reporting quality was observed for RCT (CONSORT score 6.7±1.2 vs. 7.3±1, p=0.498, CI -2.62 to 1.46) as well as in observational studies (STROBE score 8.52±2.48 vs. 8.07±2.29, p=0.387, CI -0.58 to -1.48) between oral and poster abstracts. Poster abstracts were describing significantly more frequent new operation techniques (p<0.001). Oral abstracts demonstrated a significant better quality for reporting of participants (53% vs. 13%, p <0.001) and main outcome scores (98% vs. 69%, p <0.001). External funding is generally underreported (0% vs. 2%) for oral and poster abstracts.
Conclusion: Poster presentations at the ASPS 2008 meeting have similar levels of evidence. Reporting quality of poster and oral abstracts is not significant different for randomized-controlled trials assessed by the CONSORT criteria and for observational studies assessed by the STROBE criteria. Thus, the primary hypothesis has to be rejected.