36th Annual Meeting Cervical Spine Research Society - Europe

26–28 May 2021 • Paris/France

36th Annual Meeting Cervical Spine Research Society - Europe

26–28 May 2021 • Paris/France

Conference details

Print-File

Review criteria

Every paper is rated by each reviewer. The papers and the posters are rated exactly the same way. If the abstract clearly represents significant industrial bias: 0 points are assigned, means rejection.

There will be 3 reviewers and they can indicate if the abstract is from their own group and they cannot score it. The final score is therefore averages and corrected for the number of reviewers

From one group only 2 abstracts can be accepted for oral presentation. The two highest scoring abstracts will be chosen for oral presentation and the others will be redirected to the poster section.

If an author is not able to present his abstract and withdraws it from oral presentation, the highest ranking abstract that was not chosen for oral presentation nor Mario Boni poster session is invited for oral presentation.

Oral Communications and Poster that are not Clinical Cases or works of Basic or Experimental Sciences
a) Interest in the subject:

  • 5 points: Maximum interest
  • 4 points: Good interest
  • 3 points: Average interest
  • 2 points: Regular interest
  • 1 point: Minimum interest

b) Study design / Level of evidence:

  • 5 points: Clinical trial
  • 4 points: Prospective non-randomized study. Cohort study
  • 3 points: Retrospective comparative study. Case-control stud
  • 2 points: Case series
  • 1 point: Short series of cases

c) Quality of the methodology (adequate sample size, statistical analysis, quality of presentation):

  • 5 points: Excellent
  • 4 points: Good
  • 3 points: Enough
  • 2 points: Regular
  • 1 point: Minimum

Basic or Experimental Sciences Works:

a) Interest in the subject:

  • 5 points: Maximum interest
  • 4 points: Good interest
  • 3 points: Average interest
  • 2 points: Regular interest
  • 1 point: Minimum interest

b) Study design / Level of evidence:

  • 5 points: Methodologically well structured work with an important clinical relevance (at least potential)
  • 4 points: Good methodology and a possible clinical relevance
  • 3 points: Good methodology but little clinical significance
  • 2 points: Slight methodology, perhaps clinical significance
  • 1 point: Methodology not very solid or without clinical relevance

c) Quality of the methodology (adequate sample size, statistical analysis, quality of presentation):

  • 5 points: Excellent
  • 4 points: Good
  • 3 points: Enough
  • 2 points: Regular
  • 1 point: Minimum

Clinical cases:

a) Interest in the subject:

  • 5 points: Maximum interest
  • 4 points: Good interest
  • 3 points: Average interest
  • 2 points: Regular interest
  • 1 point: Minimum interest

b) Study design / Level of evidence:

  • 3 points: Well exposed case that adds information to me and that may one day be useful to me.
  • 2 points: Case with some approach gap that could perhaps provide knowledge
  • 1 point: Just curious case, but not too much

c) Quality of the methodology (adequate sample size, statistical analysis, quality of presentation):

  • 3 points: Enough
  • 2 points: Regular
  • 1 point: Minimum