Abstract
Background: In recent years, the rapid advances in molecular biology and cancer pathophysiology, and the rapid availability of new therapeutic agents, have led to an exponential increase in the number of medical oncology conferences. This plethora may partly result from excessive duplication, undertaken without scientific or updating aims, under pressure from sponsors or other motivations unrelated to scientific advancement. The quality of meetings is therefore to be analyzed. Methods: A panel of medical oncologists, psychologists, and health-related data managers reviewed the characteristics of 99 out of 125 medical oncology conferences. The meetings were assessed for quality using a 0-5 score based on five parameters: attendees-to-speaker ratio, speaker quality, adequate time allocated for discussion, availability of feedback, and fairness of speeches. Results: The panelists identified 25 of 99 scientific events (25%; 95% CI 17-35%) at the 75th percentile and classified them as high-tier meetings, with a total score of 4-5. There were 5 national conferences, 6 regional conferences, and 14 local conferences. Forty-five meetings (56%; 95% Cl 35-56%) reached a score of 0-2 and twenty-nine (29%; 95% Cl 21-39%) a score of 3, and all were considered low tiers. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002709) in favor of high-titer national conferences. Conclusions: Although this paper has several limitations, the results indicate that many conferences were of moderate to poor quality, with a significant prevalence of low-tier events at regional and local levels and a higher concentration of low-tier events within this group. Scientific societies should implement adequate countermeasures.