Tuesday, May 08, 2012

The First Annual Heart Rhythm Society Worst Accepted Abstract Award

As many of us head off the the Heart Rhythm Society's 33rd Scientific Sessions in Boston, MA this week, we leave to see some of the best science of the year in our field.  Abstracts, posters, discussions, Live Case demonstrations, - the whole works - will be there.  Media will cover reports of late breaking clinical trials, the benefits of our new oral anticoagulants, the amazing clinical workings of the subcutaneous ICD, and late-breaking clinical trials filled with fantastic innovations and controversy. 

Sadly, no one will cover the worst abstract that made the cut for the meeting. 

But now, thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit of the blog-o-sphere, the worst abstract of this year's Scientific Sessions can be crowned!!  The criteria for such an award HAS to include the abstract that contributes the smallest amount to our field while demonstrating the worst grammar, the most bureaucratic lingo and, of course, verbosity. 

Ladies and gentleman, I give you the unofficial 2012 Heart Rhythm Society's Worst Accepted Abstract of the Year:

The sentence that clinched it? 

The conclusions:
"Conclusions: The harmonization of endpoint definitions, terminology, and clinical trial design paradigms provides consistency across clinical trial studies that can facility (sic) clinician acceptance of results and the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of devices and medicines for atrial fibrillation."

Congratulations, Abstract # AB35-01!



Jay said...

Here's my first nomination:

The whole session AB-05. "Factors associated with Mortality Following ICD Implantation"

Let's see what we'll learn here:

Renal failure, depression, smoking, high defibrillation threshold and shocks for VT/VF all are associated with increased death.

That's some ground breaking stuff.


Michel Accad said...

Looks like the authors qualify to be elected to the Institute of Medicine!...

@LastCardiology said...

It's probably a worthy winner Dr Wes but you've certainly trashed some pretty big names up there...

Just goes to show.

Actually, the thing I found interesting about this is that it calls its process 'independent' and then goes on to list the participation of every possible interested party including clinicians, device manufacturers and regulatory authorities!!!

So who is it independent of exactly?

Oh! wait a minute...I see...it's independent of the patients!!!