Show simple item record

dc.creatorIncera Castro, Ana Patricia
dc.creatorAburto Corona, Jorge Alberto
dc.creatorAcuña Espinoza, Alejandro
dc.creatorCapitán Jiménez, Catalina
dc.creatorFlores Salamanca, Rebeca
dc.creatorScaglioni Solano, Pietro
dc.creatorAragón Vargas, Luis Fernando
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-03T17:36:20Z
dc.date.available2018-09-03T17:36:20Z
dc.date.issued2014-05
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10669/75569
dc.description.abstractThe objective of the ACSM Annual Meeting is the exchange of scientific information. Authors of free communications must submi t abstracts by a specific deadline for evaluation. As the written record of those presentations, the abstra cts are expected to be clear, objective, and informative. In addition, abstracts of experimental studies must include data to substantiate the conclusions being drawn. According to the program committee, “it is not satisfactory to simply describe what was found or to only include statistical results”. Accepted abstracts are, however, sometimes confusing or misleading. PURPOSE: to assess sports nutrition abstracts according to four specific criteria of clarity and internal consistency. METHODS: all the abs tracts (n = 93) reporting experimental or quasi - experimental studies, from nine sports nutrition related free communication sessions, were selected for review. Each abstract was evaluated by two independent reviewers, according to four negative criteria; o nly those free from all four shortcomings were passed: A) The title is misleading (e.g. it reads The effect of but there is no effect). B) The results or conclusions are not consistent with the title. C) No data are presented or key res ults are omitted. D) One or more statements in the conclusions are not supported by the results. Sponsorship by an ACSM Fellow (FACSM) was also tabulated for posterior anal ysis. RESULTS: Only 36 abstracts (38.7%) passed all four criteria, while many failed more than one crit erion: A = 37, B = 35, C = 25, and D = 25. Failed abstracts were more likely to be sponsored by a FACSM (40) than not sponsored (17) (2x2 Chi 2 = 4.9, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This preliminary analysis of abstract quality reveals important shortcomings: more than 60% of the published abstracts failed, while FACSM sponsorship seemed to make a negative, rather than a positive, contribution. The absence of actual data in many abstracts is especially worrisome. This information is respectfully submitted to ACSM a s a self - evaluation, an essential ingredient in any scientific undertaking.es_ES
dc.language.isoen_USes_ES
dc.relation.ispartof
dc.sourceSports Nutrition, Dietary and Fluid Intakees_ES
dc.subjectInformación científicaes_ES
dc.subjectNutriciónes_ES
dc.subjectDeportees_ES
dc.subject658.456 015 Dirección de reunioneses_ES
dc.titleQuality of Science Reports:Analysis of Sports Nutrition 2013 ACSM Annual Meeting Abstractses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObjectes_ES
dc.date.updated2018-08-12T22:34:18Z
dc.description.procedenceUCR::Vicerrectoría de Docencia::Salud::Facultad de Medicina::Escuela de Nutriciónes_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record