Are medical congresses and conferences useful? And for whom? Asks John PA Ioannidis, of the Medicine Department of Stanford University in California, in an editorial (http://t.contactlab.it/c/2002631/1340/20688471/1739?i=482189206&u=http://jama.jamanetwork.com/searchresults.aspx?q=ioannidis&t=&p=1&s=1&c=0) published in Jama. "In theory, the events have the purpose of disseminating new knowledge, improving clinical research, training and educating, identifying evidence-based organizational models" underlines the author. "All of these ideas are certainly commendable, but there is no clear evidence that all these events are really useful." According to Ioannidis, the points against are different, from the cost of travel, to the less rigorous methodology with which the abstracts to be presented are selected. Add to this that even the speakers "are not always chosen on the basis of scientific merits or real communication skills, but sometimes rather on the basis of the ability to navigate in a real circle of power". "In an era of extensive computerization, the sharing of new knowledge can take place very quickly, almost instantaneously, all over the world (…). The creation of social networks and remote conferences could at least partially replace traditional medical congresses."
The author concludes with the proposal to "carry out formal studies to establish which types of scientific events and which training methodologies are most effective for disseminating medical knowledge, improving care pathways and limiting healthcare costs. The next step will be to implement a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of different types of meetings? The article has raised letters of protest from readers belonging to different areas of the medical-scientific world. Among the objections, published in the same journal, from the United Kingdom point out that the participation of students and young doctors as speakers is encouraged because it increases the curricular score and allows for the creation of useful relationships for future professional development; while from the Netherlands it is objected that the meetings are also an opportunity to comply with the training obligation continues (Cme).Finally, an average American underlines the pleasure of being among colleagues, as in the family, and being able to exchange opinions directly with the experts, as a partial consolation for an often solitary profession. In short, according to some readers, the human and scientific value of "face-to-face networking" prevails.
Jama 2012; 307: 1257-1258
Jama 2012; 308: 31-33
July 26, 2012 – DoctorNews
