Evaluation of Quality of Paper Reporting Online and Face-to-Face Family Medicine Congresses: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: Our study aimed to evaluate the paper reporting quality of the 18th National Family Medicine Congress, which was held face-to-face before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 19th National Family Medicine Congress, which was the first online congress during the pandemic, according to the STROBE criteria. Methods: Our study is cross-sectional analytical. Oral and poster abstracts accepted and included in the congress abstract book were included in the study. A total of 266 abstracts were reviewed. STROBE score was created out of 11 points in total by giving a "1" point if the abstract included the feature in each item and a "0" if it did not. The STROBE scores were compared by evaluating the abstracts separately by two different reviewers. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square test, Student's t-test, Pearson correlation, and Mann-Whitney U test were used. The statistical significance level was taken as p<0.05. Results: Although the rate of verbal presentations was higher in the online congress, there was no significant difference between the congresses regarding the types of papers. In 93.2% of the papers, sampling was not done, or it was not stated that it was done. All of the 18 papers stated to be sample calculations were verbal. When all papers were included, the mean STROBE scores of verbal papers were statistically significantly higher than the scores of poster papers in both reviewers. When the presentation scores according to the congresses were examined, no significant difference was found between the 18th and 19th National Family Medicine Congresses in the same groups. Conclusion: The online congress format did not affect the reporting quality of the papers. Both congresses have good reporting quality but have the potential for improvement.