Late breaker sessions: Review System

The Coordinating Committee of Scientific Activities (CCSA) of the Union World Conference base their programme selection decisions upon the following review criteria.

Below, you will find the review systems for:

  1. The Union/CDC late-breaker session on TB
  2. The HIV-TB and diabetes late-breaker session
  3. The Union student late-breaker session on lung health
  4. The Union late-breaker session on COVID-19

Please ensure you have also read the submission guidelines.

REVIEWING CRITERIA FOR THE UNION/CDC LATE-BREAKER SESSION ON TB

Topic to be scored   Score
Does this study address currently relevant TB issues? 0 – No:  Element under review not addressed at all

1 – A little:  Some attempt made to describe element under review, but not enough information to draw conclusions

2 – Somewhat:  Element is partially described but full details not provided

3 – Completely: Element being reviewed is fully and adequately described

Are the study’s objectives or working hypotheses clearly stated?
Is the population adequate? (including sample size, if applicable)
Was the data collection appropriate?
Was the analysis appropriate? Did it address biases?
Are the results adequately presented and in line with the objectives?
Are the conclusions congruent and appropriate to the results?
Stigmatising language One point will be deducted if stigmatising language is used.

Total score 21

REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE HIV-TB AND DIABETES LATE-BREAKER SESSION

Topic to be scored   Score
Does this study address currently relevant HIV-TB issues and diabetes?  

0 – No:  Element under review not addressed at all
1 – A little:  Some attempt made to describe element under review, but not enough information to draw conclusions
2 – Somewhat:  Element is partially described but full details not provided
3 – Completely: Element being reviewed is fully and adequately described

Are the study’s objectives or working hypotheses clearly stated?
Were the data collection methods appropriate, and if so were they clearly described?
Are the results adequately presented and in line with the objectives?
Are the conclusions congruent and appropriate to the results?
Stigmatising language One point will be deducted if stigmatising language is used.

Total score 15

REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE UNION STUDENT LATE-BREAKER SESSION ON LUNG HEALTH

Topic to be scored   Expected   Score
Background and objectives/challenges to implementation The background is applicable and adequately outlined. The study’s objectives/challenges or working hypotheses are clearly stated. 0 – Not Described
1 – Very Poor
2 – Poor
3 – Average
4 – Above Average
5 – Excellent
Methods/intervention or response The study design/intervention is appropriate, given the objectives/challenges. The main study parameters/activities and implemention steps and the data collection methods are adequately specified and appropriate. The analytic methods used, including the statistical analysis if relevant, were appropriate to the study design and objectives.
Results/impact Results/Impact are clearly presented and in line wuth the analysis methodology and objectives.
Conclusions The conclusions are clear, congruent with the results and appropriate.
Scientific/public health relevance The study/intervention addresses current, relevant scientific or public health issues. The study/intervention findings are important and will likely contribute to new knowledge, practice, policies or programmes. 0 – Not Relevant
1 – Very Poor
2 – Poor
3 – Above Average
4 – Above Average
5 – Extremely Relevant
Originality The study and/or findings are new or novel 0 – Not Described
1 – Very Poor
2 – Poor
3 – Average
4 – Above Average
5 – Extremely Novel
Stigmatising language One point will be deducted if stigmatising language is used.

Total score 30

REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE UNION LATE-BREAKER SESSION ON COVID-19

Topic to be scored   Score
Does this study address currently relevant COVID-19 issues? 0 – No:  Element under review not addressed at all

1 – A little:  Some attempt made to describe element under review, but not enough information to draw conclusions

2 – Somewhat:  Element is partially described but full details not provided

3 – Completely: Element being reviewed is fully and adequately described

Are the study’s objectives or working hypotheses clearly stated?
Was the study design appropriate, given the objectives of the study?
Was the choice of study subjects appropriate, given the study’s objectives?
Is the sample size large enough to likely be representative of the population of interest?
Were the main study parameters (characterstics, outcomes, exposure variables, interventions) appropriate, and if so were they clearly defined ?
Were the data collection methods appropriate, and if so were they clearly described?
Are there any apparent biases or confounding factors and are they identified and dealt with?
Were the analytic methods used, including the statistical analysis, appropriate to the study objectives?
Are the results adequately presented and in line with the objectives?
Are the conclusions congruent and appropriate to the results?
Stigmatising language One point will be deducted if stigmatising language is used.

Total score 33

Back to top

Receive Conference News & Updates