Resumo

CASTANEDA PORRAS, Oneida. REGISTRY, EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF ABSTRACTS: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE 5th SCIENTIFIC REGIONAL MEETING TEPHINET FOR THE AMERICAS, BOGOTÁ D.C., COLOMBIA, 2007.. Investig. andina [online]. 2008, vol.10, n.17, pp.58-75. ISSN 0124-8146.

Background: around the world, there are several models in field epidemiology training programs whose trainees and graduates each year have the opportunity to present their abstracts in the scientific meeting of regional or global character TEPHINET. The aim is to describe the experience of the process of registry, evaluation and selection for the oral presentation or poster abstracts at the 5th Scientific Regional Meeting TEPHINET for the Americas, in addition to evaluating the QUADLOGIC ® software as a tool for registry, classification and evaluation of scientific abstracts. Method: we applied the descriptive observational model study, based on 20 field epidemiologist evaluators from the 13 participating countries and 154 abstracts to evaluate. The process was divided into registry, evaluation and selection of abstracts in oral presentation or poster, classified by subject of presentation: Outbreaks (OB), Hospital acquired infections (HI), Surveillance and methods (S/M), Vaccine preventable diseases (VPD), Emerging infections (EI), STI/HIV, Other topics (OT). Results: initial Registry of 169 abstracts, out of 12 of the 14 FETP belonging to the Region of the Americas and the EPIET of Spain, 15(8.9%) eliminated as duplicates. Assigned by evaluator =24.3 (range=3:34). Score =3.0 (range=0:4). Registration evaluator’s comments: at least one, 69(40.9%); two, 42(27.3%), three, 10(6.5%) and without comments 39(25.3%). 125(81.2%) abstracts were selected, 44(18.6%) oral presentation, 81(52.6%) poster and 29(18.8%) rejected. As subject in Oral presentation: OB 15(34.1%), S/M 12(27.3%), OT 8(18.2%), EI 5 (11.4%), VPD 2(4.2%) and HI 2(4.2%). As Poster: S/M 31(38.3%), OB 24(29.6%), OT 18(22.2%), VPD 5(6.2%), HI 2(2.5%) and STI/HIV 1(1.2%).. Conclusions: the emphasis of training in the study of outbreaks and surveillance and methods was reflected, as well as the implementation of field epidemiology in other topics of public health interest. Using the system QL allowed randomly assigning three evaluators for abstracts, to filter identifiable data of the author and country and manage the process monitoring in time. We recommend the registry of the evaluator’s comments on the work that will feedback its author, and, to include the categories of Graduate and Trainee in the QL system.

Palavras-chave : abstracts; evaluation; training; TEPHINET; field epidemiology.