Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences Book of Abstracts 2009 Book of Abstracts

The College of Arts and Sciences proudly presents the seventh Book of Abstracts, highlighting the undergraduate scholarship conducted by students in collaboration with faculty mentors. This collection of abstracts represents many hours of scholarly activity in which students further developed their research, critical thinking, and writing skills and engaged in learning well beyond the classroom. We congratulate the students and their faculty mentors for the quality of their work and their willingness to share it with the academic community through publications in refereed journals and presentations at regional, national, and international meetings. We also thank Evan Adams for editing the abstracts and Chris Richter, a visual communication design major, for designing the cover and producing the book.

Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences 2003 Book of Abstracts

On behalf of the faculty, staff, and students in the College of Arts and Sciences, I want to thank you for your interest in this collection of abstracts of undergraduate research for 2003. This collection is the first we have published, and we expect it to be number one in a long and increasingly impressive series. The importance of this collection is what it represents. These abstracts are the results of untold hours of hard work by students and faculty. Through that work, students have learned much about the research process, developed important critical and analytical thinking skills, improved writing abilities, and deepened relationships with faculty mentors. Many students have presented their research in classes, through seminars, and at professional meetings. In this work, faculty have been challenged to push students to do the best they can, to let them flounder as they struggle to solve the problems at hand, to hold them to deadlines, and to know how to encourage and when to scold. I know from personal experience that working together on meaningful research is a powerful way to build lasting relationships between students and faculty members.

Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences 2004 Book of Abstracts

In his work entitled The Advancement of Learning (1605), Francis Bacon expresses the need for students and their teachers to push beyond current knowledge by testing accepted theories, developing new paradigms, and discovering new information. The abstracts in this booklet are clear examples of how students and faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences are advancing knowledge in a variety of disciplines. From the analysis of particular proteins to the examination of various literary themes, the students whose scholarly endeavors are represented in this booklet pursued research projects that have explored new ideas; and their teachers have helped them to achieve their goals by providing expert guidance in the field of study, by challenging students to excel, and by encouraging them as they developed their ideas. Students and faculty should be very proud of the work reflected in these abstracts. These individual efforts and collaborations reveal what is best about Winthrop University as a learning community.

Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences 2006 Book of Abstracts

The College of Arts and Sciences proudly presents our fourth issue of Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences: Book of Abstracts, which highlights the work conducted by students in collaboration with faculty mentors. This collection of abstracts represents many hours of scholarly activity in which students further developed their research, critical thinking, and writing skills and engaged in learning well beyond the classroom.

Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences 2007 Book of Abstracts

The College of Arts and Sciences proudly presents our fifth Book of Abstracts that highlights the undergraduate scholarship conducted in the college by students with their faculty mentors. As the quote by James Russell Lowell implies, the pursuit of knowledge involves more than acquiring facts; it requires posing relevant questions, critically examining information, and clearly communicating conclusions. The high level of scholarship reflected in this book is a testament to the students’ development as scholars and the effective mentorship provided by the Winthrop faculty.

Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences 2005 Book of Abstracts

The College of Arts and Sciences proudly presents Undergraduate Scholarship in the College of Arts and Sciences, the third issue in our annual book of abstracts, containing the work conducted by students in collaboration with faculty mentors. As you will see by the depth and variety of the projects, these students successfully used their research, critical thinking, and writing skills to produce scholarship that has been recognized by the larger scholarly community. In fact, these collected works illustrate the students’ ability to communicate at a professional level; in many cases, these students have presented and defended their scholarship to the greater academic community at regional, national, and international meetings. We congratulate all the students and faculty mentors who are represented in this collection for their dedication to learning. This book is also the first designed and edited by Winthrop University undergraduate students. For their good work, we thank Kristen Jeffords for editing the abstracts, Paul Jones for creating the cover art, and Stephanie Sheldon for the book design and layout.

Determinants of cesarean delivery, a population-based study in the Emilia Romagna Region

Cesarean Delivery (CD) rates are rising in many parts of the world. In order to define strategies to reduce them, it is important to explore the role of clinical and organizational factors. This thesis has the objective to describe the contemporary CD practice and study clinical and organizational variables as determinants of CD in all women who gave birth between 2005 and June 2010 in the Emilia Romagna region (Italy). All hospital discharge abstracts of women who delivered between 2005 and mid 2010 in the region were selected and linked with birth certificates. In addition to descriptive statistics, in order to study the role of clinical and organizational variables (teaching or non-teaching hospital, birth volumes, time and day of delivery) multilevel Poisson regression models and a classification tree were used. A substantial inter-hospital variability in CD rate was found, and this was only partially explained by the considered variables. The most important risk factors of CD were: previous CD (RR 4,95; 95%CI: 4,85-5,05), cord prolapse (RR 3,51; 95% CI:2,96-4,16), and malposition/malpresentation (RR 2,72; 95%CI: 2,66-2,77). Delivery between 7 pm and 7 am and during non working days protect against CD in all subgroups including those with a small number of elective CDs while delivery at a teaching hospital and birth volumes were not statistically significant risk factors. The classification tree shows that previous CD and malposition/malpresentation are the most important variables discriminating between high and low risk of CD. These results indicate that other not considered factors might explain CD variability and do not provide clear evidence that small hospitals have a poor performance in terms of CD rate. Some strategies to reduce CD could be found by focusing on the differences in delivery practice between day and night and between working and no-working day deliveries.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011

Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND: Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of abstract results is based on the magnitude or direction of study results, publication bias may result. Publication bias, in turn, creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate at which abstract results are subsequently published in full, and the time between meeting presentation and full publication. To assess the association between study characteristics and full publication. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. Date of most recent search: June 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all reports that examined the subsequent full publication rate of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form. Follow-up of abstracts had to be at least two years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data. We calculated the weighted mean full publication rate and time to full publication. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk and random effects models. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.'Positive' results defined as any 'significant' result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and 'positive' results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30).Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.28; CI 1.09 to 1.49); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.78; CI 1.50 to 2.12); randomized trial study design (RR = 1.24; CI 1.14 to 1.36); and basic research (RR = 0.79; CI 0.70 to 0.89). Higher quality of abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials was also associated with full publication (RR = 1.30, CI 1.00 to 1.71). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.