Abstract review
Welcome to the EuGMS 2025 Abstract Review webpage.
Before starting the review, please check the following guidelines:
Abstracts will be displayed in a web page available only with your credentials, you should review them with a score from 1 to 10 with the following rating system which takes into account two aspects:
1. Relevance (1= lowest score; 10: highest score)
2. Innovation & abstract quality (1= lowest score; 10: highest score)
See below the details for each field: Relevance (scoring range: 1-10)
Relevance (scoring range: 1-10)
|
10-8 points
|
Maximum relevance (e.g., transformative impact on outcomes with no significant barriers)
|
|
7-5 points
|
High relevance (e.g., clear benefits supported by strong evidence and feasible implementation)
|
|
4-2 points
|
Moderate relevance (e.g., some benefit but with limitations or uncertainties and/or barriers for practice)………
|
|
1 point
|
Minimal or no relevance (e.g., negligible impact or impractical in real-world settings)
|
Innovation & abstract quality (scoring range: 1-10)
|
10-8 points
|
Good innovation / Good abstract quality
Good innovation (e.g., distinctively original and with a clear transformative potential) and good abstract quality (e.g., well-structured) |
|
7-5 points
|
Good innovation / Poor abstract quality
Good innovation (e.g., distinctively original and with a clear transformative potential) and poor abstract quality (e.g., poor structured with flaws) |
|
4-2 points
|
Poor innovation / Good abstract quality
Poor innovation (e.g., mainly confirmatory results) and good abstract quality (e.g., well-structured)
|
|
1 point
|
Poor innovation / Poor abstract quality
Poor innovation (e.g., mainly confirmatory results) and poor abstract quality (e.g., poor structured with flaws)
|
NEWS: STUDY DESIGN CATEGORY TO BE INDICATED
Starting from 2025, reviewers will be asked to indicate the category to which each abstract belongs, selecting from the list below. PLEASE NOTE: EACH ITEM CORRESPONDS TO A NUMBER. THIS NUMBER IS NOT A SCORE, BUT THE IDENTIFICATION CODE OF THE CATEGORY.
STUDY DESIGN CATEGORY – according to level of evidence / Study design
- RCT
- Systematic review including meta-analysis
- Implementation studies
- Systematic review without meta-analysis, large cohort studies, register-based studies, large case-control studies
- Small cohort studies, small case-control studies, survey studies, laboratory studies
- Qualitative studies, pilot or feasibility studies
- Case report, case series, other kinds of reviews
- Protocol of clinical studies, expert opinion abstracts or good clinical practice examples
Please, mention in the note if you believe the abstract deserves an oral communication.
Important note: in case you would find an abstract where you or your study group are among the authors please do not evaluate it and click “back to the list” in the bottom left corner to go back to the abstracts list.
Acceptance threshold: at least an average of 6-8 total points depending on the general rating.
Oral Communication threshold: no less than an average of 16-18 total points depending on the general rating.
You don’t have to send any e-mail or communication about your decision; the system will save your comment and will communicate them to the Organizers.