6th international Symposium on Hepatitis Care in Substance Users Jersey City/New York, USA 6 - 8 September 2017

INHSU 2017 Abstract Selection Criteria

Abstracts were reviewed by three independent reviewers for each abstract according to the following scoring system:

Abstracts should contain concise statements of:

  • Background: the study objectives, the hypothesis to be tested, or a description of the problem;
  • Methods: method(s) used or approach taken;
  • Results: specific results/arguments in summarised form (with statistical analysis or other analysis where appropriate);
  • Conclusions: description of the main outcomes of the study.

Scoring Guidelines (Total score= 20)

Background and clarity of objectives of the study (1-5) Is the background of the study and objectives clear and well-presented?

  • Very good (score 5) – The background/rationale is very clear, the research is novel and fills a significant gap in the literature, and there is a very clearly stated objective?
  • Good (score 4) – The background/rationale is clear, the research is interesting, and fills a gap in the literature, and there is a clearly stated objective
  • Average (score 3) – The background/rationale is stated, the research confirms previous findings, and the objective is stated
  • Below average (score 2) – The background/rationale is not well stated, the research is not very novel, and the objective is not well stated
  • Very poor (score 1) – The abstract has no background/rationale, the research is not relevant, and the abstract is missing a clearly defined objective

Appropriateness of the study design and methodology (1-5) Is the methodology and study design appropriate for the hypothesis or aims/objectives of the study?

  • Very good (score 5) – The methods are very clear, the study design is very appropriate to evaluate the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses are very appropriate.
  • Good (score 4) – The methods are clear, the study design is appropriate to evaluate the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses are appropriate.
  • Average (score 3) – The methods lack some clarity, there are limitations to the study design for evaluating the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses have some limitations.
  • Below average (score 2) – The methods lack clarity, there are major limitations to the study design for evaluating the stated objectives, and the statistical analyses have major limitations or are incorrectly applied for the intended aims.
  • Very poor (score 1) – The methods are not clear, there are major limitations to the study design for evaluating the stated objectives which make the study uninterpretable, and the statistical analyses are very poor and/or are incorrectly applied for the intended aims.

Appropriateness of the study results (1-5) Are the results appropriate for the hypothesis or aims/objectives of the study?

  • Very good (score 5) – The results are very clearly presented, do a very good job at supporting the aims/objectives of the study, and provide very novel findings.
  • Good (score 4) – The results are clearly presented, do a good job at supporting the aims/objectives of the study, and provide interesting findings.
  • Average (score 3) – The results lack some clarity in presentation, do a reasonable job at supporting the aims/objectives of the study, and provide some interesting findings with some limitations in how they are presented.
  • Below average (score 2) – The results lack clarity in presentation, do not support the aims/objectives of the study, and provide a lack of interesting findings with major limitations in how they are presented.
  • Very poor (score 1) – The results are not clear, do not support the aims/objectives of the study, and provide a lack of interesting findings with major limitations in how they are presented.

Conclusions and significance of contribution (1-5) Are the conclusions clear, are they supported by the findings and does this work significantly contribute to the literature?

  • Very good (score 5) – The conclusions are very clearly presented, are well-supported by the findings, and provide a very significant advance in our knowledge in this area.
  • Good (score 4) – The conclusions are clearly presented, are supported by the findings, and provide a significant advance in our knowledge in this area.
  • Average (score 3) – The conclusions are adequately presented, are partially supported by the findings, and provide an advance in our knowledge in this area.
  • Below average (score 2) – The conclusions lack clarity in their presentation, do not support the findings, and provide a minor advance in our knowledge in this area.
  • Very poor (score 1) – The conclusions are not at all clear in their presentation, do not support the findings, and do not provide any advance in our knowledge in this area.

Abstracts were selected based on the top mean/median scores for each abstract.