Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:49:48.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CAEP/AMUQ 1999 scientific abstract competition: results and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Brian H. Rowe ,
Nina Sukhrani  and
Andy Sher
Brian H. Rowe*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta
Nina Sukhrani
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta
Andy Sher
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta
*
Room 1G1.63 WMC, 8440–112 St., Edmonton AB T6G 2B7; brian.rowe@ualberta.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

To examine the 1999 CAEP/AMUQ research abstracts competition in a scientific fashion, and provide descriptive information about the present and future direction of Canadian emergency medicine (EM) research.

Methods:

Using a standard evaluation form, 3 volunteer CAEP reviewers rated each submitted abstract in blind fashion. The authors of this report then combined abstract review scores with the following data: research topic, province of origin, status of first author (resident or attending physician), number of authors, adherence to submission guidelines, and acceptance status.

Results:

Of 86 abstracts submitted, 80 (93%) originated in Canada. The primary author was a resident in 34 cases (40%), a staff physician in 50 cases (58%) and unspecified in 2 cases (2%). Overall, 77 abstracts (90%) were selected for presentation: 26 (29%) oral, 40 (47%) poster, and 11 (13%) for the Resident Research Competition. The most common topics were clinical care (17%), prehospital care (15%), education/administration (14%), and decision rules (13%). The most common reason for rejection was failure to adhere to submission guidelines.

Conclusions:

Canadian EM research is growing rapidly, as witnessed by the interest in this competition, the publication of these abstracts, and the increased emphasis placed on research at the national meeting. Researchers must adhere to submission guidelines to increase their chances of abstract acceptance. Methods of promoting Canadian EM research are discussed.

Type
EM Advances • Progrès De La MU
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , October 1999 , pp. 165 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 1999

References

1.Steiner, IP, Yoon, P, Goldsand, G, Rowe, BH.Resource contributions by faculties of medicine to support and develop the discipline of emergency medicine in Canada [abstract 006]. CJEM 1999;1(3):172.Google Scholar
2.Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Position paper: research directions in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 1996;3:274–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Ernst, AA, Houry, D, Weiss, SJ.Research funding in the four major emergency medicine journals. Am J Emerg Med 1997;15:268–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Biros, M.Emergency medicine research: Where are we now and where do we need to be? Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:1101–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Handler, TA, Freid, CF.The state of emergency medicine research. Acad Emerg Med 1998;5:745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Wright, SW, Wrenn, K.Funding in emergency medicine literature: 1985 to 1992. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23:1077–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Singer, AJ, Homan, CS, Stark, MJ, Werblud, MC, Thode, HC, Hollander, JE.Comparison of types of research articles published in emergency medicine and non-emergency medicine journals. Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:1153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Call for abstracts. Demande de résumés analytiques. CAEP/ACMU Communiqué 1998–99;Winter:26.Google Scholar
9.Rowe, BH, Bota, GW, Pollack, CV, Emond, SD, Camargo, CA.Management of acute asthma among adults presenting to Canadian versus US emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32(3 part2):S2–S3.Google Scholar