Abstracts are scored according to their scientific quality, medical importance, and publication readiness. Below are our abstract scoring criteria. We hope sharing the scoring criteria will help new researchers produce better abstracts. Each abstract is reviewed and scored by at least three qualified reviewers. CORD requires that all reviewers have first-authored one or more peer-reviewed original research articles.
1: No stated hypothesis OR objective
3: Stated hypothesis difficult to test OR stated objective poorly developed
5: Clearly stated testable hypothesis OR well thought out study objective
Study Design: (1-5)
1: Chosen study design will not test the stated hypothesis OR study objective
3: Chosen study design is sub-optimal, but does test the stated hypothesis OR study objective
5: Chosen study design is the best feasible method to test the stated hypothesis OR study objective
1: Chosen study design poorly executed with critical flaws that definitely endanger the validity of the results.
3: Chosen study design executed with one or more flaws that potentially endanger the validity of the results.
5: Chosen study design executed in an acceptable manner in which results are expected to be valid.
1: Inappropriate statistical methods AND inadequate sample size
3: Inappropriate statistical methods OR inadequate sample size
5: Appropriate statistical methods AND adequate sample size
1: Data critical to interpretation of the study is absent.
3: Data critical to interpretation of the study is not clearly presented OR incomplete.
5: Data critical to interpretation of the study is clearly AND completely presented.
Relation to Hypothesis/Objective: (1-5)
1: Results do not address the stated objective OR test the stated hypothesis
3: Results only partially address the stated objective OR the stated hypothesis is not definitively tested
5: Results adequately address the stated objective OR definitively test the stated hypothesis
1: Conclusions are not supported by the results of the study
3: Conclusions only partially supported by the results of the study
5: Conclusions fully supported by the results of the study
1: Minor modification of similar published studies.
3: A unique experimental approach/technique OR a relatively understudied area of investigation
5: A unique experimental approach/technique AND a relatively understudied area of investigation
1: Study will not change EM education OR makes no meaningful contribution to the current fund of knowledge
2: Study is unlikely to change EM education OR minimally contributes to the current fund of knowledge.
3: Study will possibly change EM education OR modestly contributes to the current fund of knowledge
4: Study is likely to change EM education OR makes a significant contribution to the current fund of knowledge.
5: Study will definitely change EM education OR fundamentally changes the current fund of knowledge
1: No stated educational need OR stated importance of topic
3: Educational need not clearly demonstrated OR topic importance not clear
5: Clearly stated educational need AND stated importance of topic
EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: (1-5)
1: No stated educational objectives
3: Stated educational objectives poorly developed
5: Clearly stated and organized educational objectives
CURRICULAR DESIGN (1-5)
1: Inappropriate educational method for stated objectives OR poorly formulated / vague curriculum development
2: Educational method is appropriate but description of module/curriculum does not contain sufficient detail, no evidence of reflective process to modify/improve
4: Educational method is appropriate for objectives, detailed reproducible description of method of design, evidence of modification and fine-tuning
5: Educational method demonstrates superior and elegant design pertinent to objectives
1: Standard educational method OR minimal modification of known method
2: Moderate modification or improvement upon previously developed educational methods
4: Novel educational method OR novel use of previously developed educational method
5: Novel educational method that is likely to change educational practice
1: The curriculum/innovation is not generally applicable
2: The curriculum/innovation is potentially applicable
4: The curriculum/innovation is widely applicable
5: The curriculum/innovation is something I would recommend the majority of EM programs adopt
1: The curriculum/innovation has no educational impact OR makes no meaningful contribution
2: The curriculum/innovation has little educational impact OR minimal contribution
3: The curriculum/innovation has some educational impact OR modest contribution
4: The curriculum/innovation has significant educational impact OR contribution
5: The curriculum/innovation has significant educational impact AND makes a significant contribution
1: There is no demonstration of curriculum/innovation effectiveness OR validation
2: There is preliminary/limited demonstration of curriculum/innovation effectiveness OR validation
4: There is detailed/extensive demonstration of curriculum/innovation effectiveness OR validation
5: There is detailed/extensive demonstration of curriculum/innovation effectiveness AND validation
DESIGN OF SUBMISSION
The purpose of these sections is to explain to your readers why educational innovation is important to the CORD community and clearly describe the educational objectives.
Background: The ability to effectively perform nerve blocks to provide regional anesthesia for facial procedures is an important skill in Emergency Medicine (EM). Having the ability to practice these techniques on realistic models builds confidence and proficiency prior to performing these procedures in a clinical setting.
Objectives: We set out to create a low-fidelity model to allow residents to practice various nerve blocks on the face in order to improve resident confidence and proficiency in performing regional nerve blocks.
CURRICULAR DESIGN –
The curricular design section should contain a detailed description of the curricular innovation. This should include a discussion of why the educational method was chosen, a concise but thorough description of the module itself (including resources needed and tips for successful implementation), and methods of assessment used. In addition, reflect on any reflective initial difficulties encountered or lessons learned and modifications made.
A consensus group of medical student educators from several specialties met over 18 months to address curricular “holes” in acute care education. Under EM direction, Critical Concepts was developed with these objectives: provide all senior students exposure to critical care concepts; strengthen acute diagnostic and management skills; prepare for residency with direct patient care and team responsibilities. The course begins with one week of eight 3-hour modules provided by each specialty on management of emergencies unique to their field. Brief lectures introduce topics reinforced in breakout groups via simulators, video, case discussion, and skills practice. Modules are presented in a stepwise fashion, where possible, so each builds upon the previous one. Students then have two weeks of clinical duties in the ED and one week in an ICU. Additional didactic material is provided by social media, online modules, texts, and journal articles.
The purpose of these sections is to show how the innovation will impact or has impacted current educational practice and ideally make a meaningful contribution to the specialty that can be utilized at other institutions other than the authors own. Authors should describe how their innovation can be applied to other programs. They should also describe how they evaluated their innovation. This does not need to use research methods per se but should include some evaluation from the learners’ perspective to earn full points.
Results By the conclusion of the curriculum, there were 87 followers on Twitter and 78 on Facebook. The majority of followers had not previously used Twitter (55.6%). The majority found Twitter user-friendly (88.9%), while most (81.5%) found the information useful. There were 101 followers on Twitter … and 78 on Facebook at the follow-up survey. Ultrasound experience ranged from novice (0-10 scans, 5.3% of respondents) to advanced (>100 scans, 47% of respondents). 61 (60%) of the Twitter followers who could be identified included 23 physicians, 16 corporate-related users, 12 students, and 4 ultrasound technicians. Finally, the majority (59.2%) stated they would like to follow more educational feeds via twitter.
Conclusion: Due to its ease of use and widespread applicability, Twitter and Facebook are excellent applications of push technology as a means to deliver educational content. This pilot project has demonstrated the potential of social media to both supplement and enhance traditional educational methods.