ergoscience, Table of Contents ergoscience 2009; 4(1): 32-33DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1109049 Aus Forschung und Lehre© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New YorkAkademische Kommunikation und Sorge um ErgotherapiekonferenzenOffener Brief internationaler Wissenschaftler im November 2008Esther M SteultjensRecommend Article Abstract Buy Article(opens in new window) Full Text References Literatur 1 Smith J, Nixon R, Bueschen A J. et al . Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content. Journal of Urology. 2002; 168 2123-2125 2 Callaham M L, Wears R L, Weber E J. et al . Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA. 1998; 280 254-257 3 Rubin H R, Redelmeier D A, Wu A W. et al . How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1993; 5 255-258 4 Bhandari M, Templeman D, Tornetta P. Interrater reliability in grading abstracts for the orthopaedic trauma association. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2004; 423 217-221
