Poster presentations at medical conferences: an effective way of disseminating research?
Open accessAbstract
This study aimed to ascertain the value of posters at medical meetings to presenters and delegates. The usefulness of posters to presenters at national and international meetings was evaluated by assessing the numbers of delegates visiting them and the reasons why they visited. Memorability of selected posters was assessed and factors influencing their appeal to expert delegates identified. At both the national and international meetings, very few delegates (< 5%) visited posters. Only a minority read them and fewer asked useful questions. Recall of content was so poor that it prevented identification of factors improving their memorability. Factors increasing posters' visual appeal included their scientific content, pictures/graphs and limited use of words. Few delegates visit posters and those doing so recall little of their content. To engage their audience, researchers should design visually appealing posters by presenting high quality data in pictures or graphs without an excess of words.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Only a small proportion of conference attendees take the time to read posters in detail or ask questions to presenters.
“Another study showed that only a small proportion of conference attendees take the time to read posters in detail or ask questions to the presenters [14].”
From What Makes a Good Poster? Evaluating #BetterPoster and Classic Formats at a Scientific Cancer Conference (2026) · cites this paper as [14]
Posters with a strong first impression are more likely to capture attention and facilitate further engagement.
“This reinforces our finding that posters with a strong first impression, such as those mindfully using the better poster or classic format, are more likely to capture attention and facilitate further engagement.”
From What Makes a Good Poster? Evaluating #BetterPoster and Classic Formats at a Scientific Cancer Conference (2026) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Maugh TI. Poster sessions: a new look at scientific meetings. Science 1974;184:1361.
- Hopper AD, Atkinson RJ, Razak A et al. Is medical research within the UK in decline? A study of publication rates from the British Society of Gastroenterology from 1994 to 2002. Clin Med 2009;9:22-5.
- Rowe N, Ilic D. What impact do posters have on academic knowledge transfer? A pilot survey on author attitudes and experiences. BMC Med Educ 2009;9:71.
- Halligan P. Poster presentations: valuing all forms of evidence. Nurse Educ Pract 2008;8:41-5.
- Salzl G, Golder S, Timmer A et al. Poster exhibitions at national con- ferences: education or farce? Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008;105:78-83.
- Briggs DJ. A practical guide to designing a poster for presentation. Nurs Stand 2009;23:35-9.
- Hamilton CW. At a glance: a stepwise approach to successful poster presentations. Chest 2008;134:457-9.
- Boullata JI, Mancuso CE. A 'how-to' guide in preparing abstracts and poster presentations. Nutr Clin Pract 2007;22:641-6.
- Shelledy DC. How to make an effective poster. Respir Care 2004;49:1213-6.
- Campbell RS. How to present, summarize, and defend your poster at the meeting. Respir Care 2004;49:1217-21.
- Willett LL, Paranjape A, Estrada C. Identifying key components for an effective case report poster: an observational study. J Gen Intern Med 2009;24:393-7.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bentsen, L., & Østergaard, D. E. (2026) · Journal of Cancer Education · doi:10.1007/s13187-025-02622-1 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Oronje, B., Morrison, M., Suharlim, C., Folkman, K., Glaude-Hosh, A., & Jeisy-Scott, V. (2024) · doi:10.32388/p7n5bo.2 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Goodhand, Jr., Giles, C., Wahed, M., Irving, P., Langmead, L., & Rampton, D.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Venue
- Clinical Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 138-141
- ISSN
- 1470-2118 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5922734
- OpenAlex
- W2154871806
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 18.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conferences and Exhibitions Management
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- poster presentations, medical conferences, research dissemination, poster design, visual appeal, conference attendance, audience engagement, science communication
- MeSH terms
- Audiovisual Aids, Congresses as Topic, Female, Gastroenterology, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Linear Models, Statistics, Nonparametric, Information Dissemination, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review