The Bibliometric Analysis of the Studies Presented at the Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the Period 2009-2018

Objective

The aim of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the abstracts presented at Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the years from 2009 to 2018.

Methods

Abstracts were defined and grouped according to their field of study, design, level of evidence, number of authors, the main institution in which they were held, and whether they were uni- or multi-centric. Frequency and percentage tables were prepared.

Results

In total, 5,463 studies, of which 1,431 (26.2%) were oral presentations and 4,032 (73.8%) were poster presentations were reviewed. The highest number of studies was in the field of otology and in the form of oral presentations (32%), and in the field of head and neck surgery in the form of poster presentations (37%). Fifty-seven percent of all studies were conducted in university hospitals, and 34% in Training and Research Hospitals. Eighty-three percent of oral presentations and 99% of poster presentations were clinical studies. The rate of experimental animal studies was 16% in oral presentations. The most commonly used design of orally presented clinical studies was descriptive (31%), whereas prospective randomized controlled design was the least common (3%). No study with a level 1 of evidence was found. The rate of oral papers presented with evidence levels 2, 3, 4, and 5 among all oral presentations were 22%, 13%, 11%, and 54%, respectively.

Conclusion

The findings indicated that the abstracts were satisfactory in quantity, but overall scientific quality was not sufficient. The data obtained may serve as a basis for future studies, and follow-up studies may guide individuals and institutions that steer the Turkish ENT community.

Publication of abstracts presented at the Irish Paediatric Association conference

BACKGROUND

The proportion of abstracts presented at medical conferences that are subsequently published is a potentially useful surrogate for the quality of the material presented. The mean publication percentage for paediatric conference abstracts reported in the literature is 39%. The publication of abstracts presented at the Irish Paediatric Association's (IPA) annual conference have not previously been explored.

AIM

To identify the subsequent publication proportion for abstracts presented at the IPA annual conference and to identify factors associated with a higher likelihood of publication.

METHODS

As 95% of publications occur within 5 years of conference presentation, abstracts from the 2008 to 2012 IPA conferences were selected for analysis. A PubMed/Medline search was conducted using the author's names and, if required, abstract keywords. For comparability with previous studies, articles were deemed published if they were full journal articles, contained at least one similar author and reported similar outcomes.

RESULTS

Over the 5-year study period, 584 IPA abstracts were presented. The percentage of abstracts published was 19.7%. One hundred and fifteen articles were published in 45 different journals; 31 (27%) of these were published in the Irish Medical Journal. The percentage of abstracts published was significantly higher for oral presentations (23% vs. 15%; p = 0.012), university-associated abstracts (31% vs. 16%; p < 0.001) and interventional studies (52% vs. 18%; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, only university association and interventional studies remained significantly associated with publication.

CONCLUSION

The percentage of IPA abstracts that were published was low when compared internationally. Further analysis is required to explore the reasons underpinning this.

Stronger Together in Lab: Multi-Center and Laboratory Spine Studies Are Closer to Publication than Single-Center and Clinical Spine Studies: Snapshot of Annual Meetings of the Spine Society of Europe

Study Design

This is a cross-sectional study of literature databases.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to analyze the predictive factors for the publication rates of spine studies.

Overview of Literature

Spine research has garnered worldwide interest due to the increased number of spinal disorders in aging population.

Methods

We evaluated the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Spine Society of Europe between 2009 and 2012. Additionally, we recorded presentation categories, study designs, research types, random assignments of the subjects, single- or multi-center- based methodologies, and significance of the results.

Results

We evaluated 965 abstracts, 53.5% of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. Publication rates were significantly higher for oral presentations (62.9%) and prospective studies (61.3%) as compared to the poster presentations (46.7%) and retrospective studies (44.2%), respectively (p <0.001). Clinical studies contributed to about 86.1% of the published abstracts. However, publication rates were significantly higher for laboratory studies as compared to clinical studies (70.1% vs. 50.8%, p <0.001). Multi-center studies were closer to publication than single-center studies (67.1% vs. 52.2%, p =0.009). Our study demonstrated that multi-center studies (odds ratio, 1.81; p =0.016) and laboratory studies (odds ratio, 2.60; p <0.001) are more likely to be published.

Conclusions

Multi-center collaborations dedicated to experimental studies in spine research are highly ranked and more likely to be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Publication Patterns of Presentations at the 16th Quadrennial Meeting of the World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

The quality of a scientific meeting can be quantified by the rate of full publications arising from the presented abstracts and the impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the publication rates of presentations from the 2013 World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery (WSSFN) quadrennial meeting.

METHODS

Scopus and PubMed databases were searched for the authors of the presentations to identify full publications arising from the relevant abstracts. Author and content matching were used to match an abstract with a full publication. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 77% (57/74), 56% (44/79), and 50% (79/157) of the paper, flash, and poster presentations, respectively, have been published, with an overall publication rate of 58% (180/310). Articles received a total of 5,227 citations, with an average of 29 ± 64.1 citations per article. The first authors who published their studies had a significantly higher h-index than those who did not publish (p = 0.003). The most preferred journals for publication were Journal of Neurosurgery, Acta Neurochirurgica, and Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. The majority of the articles (117/180 [65%]) were published in a quartile 1 or 2 journal. The average journal impact factor (JIF) was 4.5 for all presentations, and 7.8 for paper session presentations. Studies presented in paper sessions were published in significantly higher-impact factor journals than those presented in poster sessions (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The WSSFN Congress had a relatively high overall publication rate (58%) compared to both other neurosurgical congresses and congresses in other scientific fields. The average JIF of 7.8 is a reflection of the high quality and high impact of the paper session presentations.

The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Abstract and Keywords

An abstract is a self-contained, short, powerful statement that describes a larger body of work. It may be incorporated as part of a published paper, book, grant proposal, thesis, research report, or a conference paper. An abstract of a scientific paper will be published online independently, so it should make sense when it is read alone. An abstract of a hypothesis-testing paper consists of at least four key elements, as follows: (1) study question/hypothesis/aim, (2) experiments/material and methods, (3) results, and (4) response to the question/conclusion(s). The abstract usually begins with a background and may end in applications, recommendations, implications, or speculations. The abstract is one of the many features of a manuscript that competes for the readers' attention; therefore, it should be informative, accurate, attractive, and concise. Since a huge amount of work must be compressed into a few sentences, writing an abstract may be a difficult task that needs professional skills. Here, we provide a practical guide to writing an abstract and selecting keywords for a hypothesis-testing medical paper.

Assessing publication rate of abstracts presented in spine conferences as a quality benchmark: the example of the Canadian Spine Society Annual Meetings

INTRODUCTION

Publication rate can indirectly assess the quality of research presented in scientific meetings. Considering presentations at orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery meetings, 10.5-66% of abstracts are published in scientific journals. Publication rate of abstracts presented at CSS Meetings is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Canadian Spine Society(CSS) Annual Meetings from 2005to2014.

METHODS

In October2018, a systematic PubMed search was performed using title and authors of all abstracts presented at CSS Meetings from 2005 to 2014. The following information was retrieved from the articles and abstracts: year, type of presentation, publication in PubMed, time from presentation to final publication, journal and its impact factor(IF).

RESULTS

A total of 621 abstracts were presented at CSS meetings from 2005 to 2014. Publication rate in PubMed was 54.8%(N=340/621). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations(63.8%vs44.0%; OR=1.45; CI95%=1.20-1.75; P<0.0001). The mean time from presentation to publication was 1.76 years(±1.93). The 340 identified articles were published in 87 different journals. Most common journals were Spine(N=75; 22.1%), The Spine Journal(N=40;11.8%), and Journal of Neurosurgery:Spine(N=28;8.2%). IF ranged from 0.18 to 47.66(mean=3.73±4.68). IF of articles presented orally were higher than those presented as poster(P=0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

The CSS scientific meeting maintain along the years a steady high quality research presentations as manifested by its significant publication rate(54.8%) in medical journals with mean IF of 3.73. In comparison with other spine scientific meetings, publication rates of abstracts presented at CSS meeting is amongst the highest.

Publication rate of presentations at Korean plastic surgery meetings: The R&R Forum, KSAPS, and KSPRS (2011-2015)

Background

Since the initial Research and Reconstruction Forum (R&R Forum) in 2011, the R&R Forum, Korean Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (KSAPS), and Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (KSPRS) have held annual meetings. This study was conducted to provide updated information on the publication rate of presentations at those meetings.

Methods

Plastic surgery–related abstracts presented at the R&R Forum, KSAPS, and KSPRS between 2011 and 2015 were collected. The sessions were divided into free papers, posters, and e-presentations (or e-posters) for each annual meeting. Abstract publication status was confirmed through PubMed, Google Scholar, the KCI-Korean Journal Database, and the KMbase database.

Results

In total, 2,335 abstracts were presented in the free paper, poster, and e-presentation sessions. Of these, 622 (26.6%) were published. The overall publication rates were 240 of 684 abstracts (35.1%) presented at the R&R Forum, 56 of 216 abstracts (25.9%) presented at the KSAPS meetings, and 326 of 1,435 abstracts (22.7%) presented at the KSPRS meetings. In terms of specific annual meetings, the 2014 R&R Forum had the highest publication rate (39.9%), followed by the 2015 KSAPS (31.0%) and the 2015 KSPRS (28.8%).

Conclusions

Scientific researchers present diverse results at these professional meetings, with a focus on innovative surgical techniques and improved surgical outcomes. This is our second study on this topic. Despite its limitations, this study indirectly shows that the recognition of Korean plastic surgeons and the quality of the annual meetings of Korean societies of plastic surgery have risen to the global level.

The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias

BACKGROUND

Research articles tend to focus on positive findings in their abstract, especially if multiple outcomes have been studied. At the same time, search queries in databases are generally limited to the abstract, title and keywords fields of an article. Negative findings are therefore less likely to be detected by systematic searches and to appear in systematic reviews. We aim to assess the occurrence of this 'abstract reporting bias' and quantify its impact in the literature on the association between diesel exhaust exposure (DEE) and bladder cancer.

METHODS

We set up a broad search query related to DEE and cancer in general. Full-texts of the articles identified in the search output were manually scanned. Articles were included if they reported, anywhere in the full-text, the association between DEE and bladder cancer. We assume that the use of a broad search query and manual full-text scanning allowed us to catch all the relevant articles, including those in which bladder cancer was not mentioned in the abstract, title or keywords.

RESULTS

We identified 28 articles. Only 12 of these (43%) had mentioned bladder in their abstract, title or keywords. A meta-analysis based on these 12 detectable articles yielded a pooled risk estimate of 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.25), whereas the meta-analysis based on all 28 articles yielded a pooled estimate of 1.03 (95% CI 0.96-1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

This case study on abstract reporting bias shows that (a) more than half of all relevant articles were missed by a conventional search query and (b) this led to an overestimation of the pooled effect. Detection of articles will be improved if all studied exposure and outcome variables are reported in the keywords. The restriction on the maximum number of keywords should be lifted.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the 23rd (2013) and 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses: We are not improving

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine 1) the publication rates of podium and poster presentations from the 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses in peer-reviewed journals and (2) compare these rates with publication rates from the 20th congress (2007) published previously. The secondary objective was to determine the time lag to publication and compare this data with the data from the 20th congress.

METHODS

All abstracts from the scientific programs of the 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses were identified and computerized PubMed searches were conducted to determine whether an abstract had been followed by publication of a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals. The time lag to publication was also noted.

RESULTS

Of the 993 presentation abstracts (302 podium and 691 poster presentations) from the 23rd congress and of the 940 presentation abstracts (310 podium and 630 poster presentations) from the 24th congress, 278 (28%) and 234 (24.9%) were followed by a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals indexed by PubMed, respectively. The rates of publication of the podium and poster presentations were 39.4% (119/302) and 23% (159/691), respectively from the 23rd and 37.7% (117/310) and 18.6% (117/630), respectively from the 24th congresses. The mean time to publication of the abstracts from the 23rd congress was 12.8 ± 18.8 (median: 13, range: -140 to 47) months and the mean time to publication of the abstracts from the 24th congress was 11.1 ± 14.42 (median: 11, range: -73 to 39) months. Fifty (50/278, 18%) abstracts from the 23rd congress (mean -11, range: [-32]-[-1], median -5 months) and 37 (37/234, 15.8%) abstracts from the 24th congress (mean -10.4, range: [-73]-[-1], median -4 months) were published as full-text articles prior to the presentation at the congress.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of abstracts presented at 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses were not followed by publication of a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals. The publication rates of the abstracts presented at these congresses did not improve when compared with the 20th (2007) congress.

Distinguishing abstract from concrete concepts in supramodal brain regions

Concrete words have been shown to have a processing advantage over abstract words, yet theoretical accounts and neural correlates underlying the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts are still unresolved. In an fMRI study, participants performed a property verification task on abstract and concrete concepts. Property comparisons of concrete concepts were predominantly based on either visual or haptic features. Multivariate pattern analysis successfully distinguished between abstract and concrete stimulus comparisons at the whole brain level. Multivariate searchlight analyses showed that posterior and middle cingulate cortices contained information that distinguished abstract from concrete concepts regardless of feature dominance. These results support the view that supramodal convergence zones play an important role in representation of concrete and abstract concepts.

Quality of abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals

AIM

To systematically evaluate the reporting quality of the abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and multi-variate analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included in the analysis. The mean PRISMA-Abstract score was 7.46 ± 1.19. None of the studies were of high quality (score 10-12), 20 were of moderate (score 7-9), and 4 were of low quality (score 1-6). Journals that adhered to PRISMA guidelines showed significantly higher quality (p < 0.05). No association was found between the quality and the number of authors, country, journals, year of publication, word count and focus of study.

CONCLUSION

Majority of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry journals were of moderate quality. Adoption and adherence to PRISMA-Abstract checklist by the journal editors and authors will enhance the reporting quality of abstracts.

Highlights of Abstracts on Lymphoma in the Annual Conference ISHBT Kochi 2018

Lymphomas constitute a vast and heterogenous group of predominantly solid haematopoietic malignancies. Immunohistochemistry has always played a pivotal role in the diagnosis of lymphomas. Many new prognostic immunohistochemical markers have also come up and are being increasingly employed. The unraveling of molecular pathways in the study of lymphomas has opened the possibility of various new prognostic markers. Staging of lymphomas relies a lot on imaging. With the increasing use of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography scan for staging, many studies have shown that it has a high sensitivity for detecting bone marrow (BM) involvement especially in Hodgkin lymphoma thereby obviating the need for BM biopsy. Treatment option though heavily chemotherapy-regimen based, relapsed/refractory lymphomas pose a therapeutic challenge despite the advent of salvage chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies and stem cell transplantation. Response rates to therapy also show a great deal of variation. The 59th Annual Conference of ISHBT "Haematocon" 2018 held at Kochi, Kerala had 27 abstracts which included 17 case series and 10 case reports presented under the lymphoma track. This brief review summarizes the salient findings as a reflection of on-going studies on lymphoma from various parts of our country.

The fate of abstracts presented at international ophthalmology meetings: 2- and 5-year publication rates

PURPOSE

To investigate the 2- and 5-year publication rates of abstracts presented at major international ophthalmology meetings.

METHODS

We analyzed a random selection of 20% of free papers and posters presented at the 2010 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the European Association for Vision and Eye Research, the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology, and the 2009 European Society of Ophthalmology meeting. The PubMed (MEDLINE) database was searched to identify matching journal articles. Data collection included: topic, geographic origin, presentation type, publication status, and impact factor. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to assess odds of publication and impact factor.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 1742 research abstracts. The overall 2- and 5-year publication rates were 33.3% (n = 579) and 47.2% (n = 823), respectively. The highest publication rates were found for Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (36.1% and 51.9%, p < 0.0001), paper presentations (44.5% and 60.5%, p < 0.0001), researches from Oceania (35.8% and 57.1%, p < 0.05) and North America (36.2% and 50.5%, p < 0.05), and Basic science studies (44% and 60.3%, p < 0.01). After adjustments, higher odds of publication were shown by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology meetings (p < 0.0001), papers (p < 0.0001), and Basic science (p < 0.05). The median impact factor was 3.20 (interquartile range = 1.90-3.40).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of abstracts presented at the major ophthalmology meetings reach publication within 5 years of their initial presentation. Professionals attending meetings may consider adopting a more critical approach to the preliminary results reported in presented abstracts. Increasing publication rates and reducing potential publication bias is of interest.

Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience

BACKGROUND

Reporting quality of systematic reviews' (SRs) abstracts is important because this is often the only information about a study that readers have. The aim of this study was to assess adherence of SR abstracts in the field of anesthesiology with the reporting checklist PRISMA extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) and to analyze to what extent will the use of PRISMA-A yield concordant ratings in two raters without prior experience with the checklist.

METHODS

We analyzed reporting quality of SRs with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of interventions published in the field of anesthesiology from 2012 to 2016 by using 12-item PRISMA-A checklist. After calibration exercise, two authors without prior experience with PRISMA-A scored the abstracts. Primary outcome was median adherence to PRISMA-A checklist. Secondary outcome was adherence to individual items of the checklist. We analyzed whether there was improvement in reporting of SR abstracts over time. Additionally, we analyzed discrepancies between the two raters in scoring individual PRISMA-A items.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 318 results, of which we included 244 SRs. Median adherence to PRISMA-A checklist was 42% (5 items of 12). The majority of analyzed SR abstracts (N = 148, 61%) had a total adherence score under 50%, and not a single one had adherence above 75%. Adherence to individual items was very variable, ranging from 0% for reporting SR funding, to 97% for interpreting SR findings. Overall adherence to PRISMA-A did not change over the analyzed 5 years before and after publication of PRISMA-A in 2013. Even after calibration exercise, discrepancies between the two raters were found in 275 (9.3%) out of 2928 analyzed PRISMA-A items. Cohen's Kappa was 0.807. In the item about the description of effect there were discrepancies in 59% of the abstracts between the raters.

CONCLUSION

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in the field of anesthesiology is suboptimal, and did not improve after publication of PRISMA-A checklist in 2013. We need stricter adherence to reporting checklists by authors, editors and peer-reviewers, and interventions that will help those stakeholders to improve reporting of systematic reviews. Some items of PRISMA-A checklist are difficult to score.

How the ESPU grades clinical abstracts

The ability to consistently review abstracts in an unbiased and objective fashion is a skill that most academics hope to master. However, robust standardized rating systems are sparse, with most scientific boards leaving the task of rating abstracts poorly defined and at the whim of the reviewer. In an effort to bring consistency to this process, in 2013, the ESPU board adopted an abstract rating system that has been previously used in the field of plastic surgery and orthopedics. (van der Steen et al., 2004; Poolman et al., 2007). The aim of this manuscript is to outline this practice.

Rate and factors influencing the conversion of abstracts presented at the argentinian congress of hypertension meetings to indexed full peer-reviewed publications

INTRODUCTION

Publication rates vary significantly among different scientific meetings, with many abstracts never being published as peer-reviewed articles. This issue has never been investigated in the Hypertension field in Argentina. Our purpose was to determine the proportion of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings that were published as full articles in peer-reviewed indexed journals, the time lag to publication and the factors associated with successful publication.

METHODS

we conducted a PubMed search to identify peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings between 2006 and 2015, assessing publication rate along with the time lag to publication. We also extracted information about several abstract characteristics and, for those that got published, we recorded the date of publication and journal name with its impact factor and H index. Predictors of publication were analyzed using a multivariable model.

RESULTS

a total of 619 abstracts were presented between 2006 and 2015. The rate of conversion to full-text peer-reviewed articles by June 2017 was 28.1% (95%CI 24.7-31.8%), with a median time to publication of 15.7 months (IQR 8-30.9). On multivariable analysis, the independent predictors of publication were basic science category (OR 5 [95%CI 2.3-10.8], p<0.001), oral presentation (OR 2.8 [95%CI 1.6-4.9], p<0.001) and being an award winner for the presentation (OR 3 [95%CI 1.3-6.8], p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

conversion rate to full peer-reviewed articles of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings is far from ideal, with potential areas where efforts should be concentrated to improve dissemination of knowledge.

Publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Publication of a study is the end point of the process to contribute to the literature and confirm the scientific value of the study. Publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of neurosurgery have been studied, previously. However, publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of pediatric neurosurgery have not been reported, yet. We evaluated abstracts presented at the 38th annual meeting of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery (ISPN) held in South Korea, 2010.

METHODS

We conducted this cross-sectional study by reviewing the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the ISPN, 2010. Titles and authors of the abstracts were surveyed using Google Scholar and PubMed/MEDLINE. Time to publication, origin of the study, journal name in which the study has been accepted and published, and type of study has been analyzed for each abstract.

RESULTS

The abstract booklet included 235 abstracts, consisted of 128 oral presentations (54%) and 107 electronic posters (46%). Fifty-nine (46%) of the oral presentations were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Laboratory studies were more likely to be published when compared to the clinical studies (72 vs. 39%). Thirty-two (30%) of the electronic posters were published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the published abstracts were from Asia and Europe. Most of the abstracts were published in Child's Nervous System and Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics.

CONCLUSION

Publication rates of the abstracts presented at annual meeting of the ISPN were comparable to the other similar congresses. Oral presentations were more likely to be published. High publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the ISPN suggested that the meeting had a high scientific value.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research

BACKGROUND

Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.

The role of alpha oscillations in deriving and maintaining spatial relations in working memory

Previous research has demonstrated distinct neural correlates for maintenance of abstract, relational versus concrete, sensory information in working memory (WM). Storage of spatial relations in WM results in suppression of posterior sensory regions, which suggests that sensory information is task-irrelevant when relational representations are maintained in WM. However, the neural mechanisms by which abstract representations are derived from sensory information remain unclear. Here, using electroencephalography, we investigated the role of alpha oscillations in deriving spatial relations from a sensory stimulus and maintaining them in WM. Participants encoded two locations into WM, then after an initial maintenance period, a cue indicated whether to convert the spatial information to another sensory representation or to a relational representation. Results revealed that alpha power increased over posterior electrodes when sensory information was converted to a relational representation, but not when the information was converted to another sensory representation. Further, alpha phase synchrony between posterior and frontal regions increased for relational compared to sensory trials during the maintenance period. These results demonstrate that maintaining spatial relations and locations in WM rely on distinct neural oscillatory patterns.

The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: A systematic survey of the literature

Background

The stepped wedge trial (SWT) design is a type of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) design in which clusters or individuals are randomly and sequentially crossed over from control to intervention over a number of time periods. Trials using SWT design have become increasingly popular in medical, behavioral and social sciences research. Therefore, complete and transparent reporting of these studies is crucial. In particular, the quality of the abstracts of their reports is important because these may be the only accessible sources for their results.

Objective

The aims of this survey were to evaluate the reporting quality of SWT abstracts and to identify factors contributing to better reporting quality.

Methods

We performed literature searches to identify relevant articles in English published from November 1987 to October 2016 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. At least two reviewers examined the quality of abstract reporting using the 17-item CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) Extension for Abstracts tool. Poisson regression models for incidence rate ratio (IRR) were used to identify factors associated with reporting quality (e.g., CONSORT endorsement, the number of authors, abstract format).

Results

A total of 92 eligible articles were identified. Only 6 from the 17 items were reported in more than 80% of the articles (e.g., the statement of conclusions, contact details for the corresponding author). In the multivariable analysis, the year of publication since 2008 (IRR: 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.33), journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement (IRR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.31), and multiple authorship (IRR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.27) were significantly associated with better reporting quality.

Conclusion

The quality of reporting of SWT abstracts was suboptimal, although there have been some significant improvements since 2008. Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by journals is an essential element of improvement strategies. Also, multiple authorship is significantly associated with better quality of abstract reporting.

Quality of abstracts of randomized control trials in five top pain journals: A systematic survey

Background

The reporting quality of abstracts of randomized control trials (RCTs) is inadequate despite the publication of consolidated standards of reporting trials extension for abstracts (CONSORT-A). We compared the reporting quality of abstracts in pain journals before and after the publication of CONSORT-A.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE in April-2016 for RCTs published in five pain journals: Pain, Pain Physician, European Journal of Pain, Clinical Journal of Pain and Pain Practice for pre- and post-CONSORT-A period (2005–2007 and 2013–2015). Data were extracted in duplicate from 250 abstracts for compliance with CONSORT-A, and for items known to affect reporting quality: journal endorsement of CONSORT, number of trial centers, sample-size, type of intervention, industry-sponsorship and significance of results. The primary outcome was mean number of items reported and the secondary outcome was the reporting of each item. We used logistic regression and Poisson regression for analyses.

Results

Most trials were single centric (76%), had sample size <100 (63%), involved pharmacological intervention (59%) and were non-industry funded (70%). The mean number of items reported was better for 2013–2015 (mean difference 0.94; 95% confidence-interval [CI]: 0.50–1.38, p < 0.001). Post-CONSORT-A, trials were more likely to report as randomized in the title (odds ratio (OR) 2.69; 95% CI 1.61–4.49), describe eligibility criteria and settings (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.35–4.54), provide effect size and precision for primary outcome (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.19–5.16), inform harms (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.05–3.07) and report trial registration (OR 5.13; 95% CI 1.44–18.32). Post-CONSORT-A period (incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.15; 95% CI 1.07–1.24), endorsement of CONSORT statement by the journal (IRR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02–1.14), multi-centric studies (IRR 1.14; 95% CI 1.08–1.20), and studies with pharmacological interventions (IRR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02–1.13) were significantly associated with reporting of more items.

Conclusions

Abstract reporting for trials in pain literature was better in the post-CONSORT-A period, but there is room for improvement.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual congress of the Turkish Society of Colorectal Surgery (years 2003-2011)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to examine the Publication Rate of Congress of Turkish Society of Colorectal Surgery meeting abstracts and determine the factors affecting publication rate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All presentations at Congress of Turkish Society of Colorectal Surgery congresses held in 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011 were retrospectively assessed. Manuscripts indexed in Google-Scholar database were included. The meeting year, study type, presentation type, title and time to publication of studies were assessed. Actual impact factor values were assessed to introduce the scientific power of the journals.

RESULTS

Among a total of 614 abstracts presented at these congresses, 139 (22.6%) presentations were published in various medical journals. The publication rate was higher in oral presentations as group compared to poster presentations (29.7% vs. 19.5%) (p<0.001). Mean time to publication period was 20.4 (±21.1) months. 78 (56.1%) of published articles were published in SCI-E journals while 61 (43.9%) were published in non-SCI-E journals. Experimental studies had a higher Publication Rate in analysis of publication rate according to study type (p<0.001). Prospective clinical studies had a higher publication rate than retrospective studies. The journals in which oral presentations had been published had greater impact factor than journals in which poster presentations had been published (p=0.02). If published; prospective clinical studies were published in journals with greater impact factor than retrospective studies (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

The quality of a meeting is correlated with the publication of abstracts accepted as presentations. Congress of Turkish Society of Colorectal Surgery congress is an efficient meeting for researchers, and have a lower PR as compared to international congresses while having a similar publication rate to equivalent scientific meetings. Being more selective during abstract acceptance should increase the Publication Rate and quality of Congress of Turkish Society of Colorectal Surgery congresses.

Quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in emergency medicine journals: a protocol for a systematic survey of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in major general medical journals and in some category-specific journals was shown to be poor before the publication of the ConsolidatedStandards of ReportingTrials (CONSORT) extension for abstracts in 2008, and an improvement in the quality of reporting of abstracts was observed after its publication. The effect of the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts on the quality of reporting of RCTs in emergency medicine journals has not been studied. In this paper, we present the protocol of a systematic survey of the literature, aimed at assessing the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in emergency medicine journals and at evaluating the effect of the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts on the quality of reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Medline database will be searched for RCTs published in the years 2005-2007 and 2014-2015 in the top 10 emergency medicine journals, according to their impact factor. Candidate studies will be screened for inclusion in the review. Exclusion criteria will be the following: the abstract is not available, they are published only as abstracts, still recruiting, or duplicate publications. The study outcomes will be the overall quality of reporting (number of items reported) according to the CONSORT extension and the compliance with its individual items. Two independent reviewers will screen each article for inclusion and will extract data on the CONSORT items and on other variables, which can possibly affect the quality of reporting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a library-based study and therefore exempt from research ethics board review. The review results will be disseminated through abstract submission to conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal.

Publication rates of podium presentations at the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons annual open versus closed meetings 2008 to 2012

Aim

The purpose of this study was to analyze the publication rate for abstracts presented at podium presentations from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) annual open and closed meetings from 2008 to 2012.

Materials and methods

Abstracts accepted as podium presentations for the open and closed meetings from 2008 through 2012 were followed. A search was performed using Google Scholar and PubMed for all published manuscripts. This analysis looks at abstracts categorized based on annual meeting (open versus closed) and by meeting year (2008–2012). Data including publication journal, publication date, and level of evidence were recorded. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and odds ratios were performed with p < 0.05 significance.

Results

A total of 365 abstracts were accepted to the open and closed annual meetings from 2008 to 2012, with 49% and 51% presented in open and closed forums. A total of 222 (61%) were published within 3-years in peer-reviewed journals. No difference existed in 3-year publication rate between open and closed podium presentation meetings (112/178, 63% open; 110/187, 59% closed; p = 0.4229); however, presentations at closed meetings were more likely to be published after 3-years compared to open meetings (2/178, 2% open; 15/187, 12% closed; p = 0.002). Most common journal of publication was the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES) (50%).

Conclusions

Podium abstracts presented at the open and closed annual meetings have publication rates of 63% and 59% with overall combined publication rates of 61% from 2008 to 2012. The high publication rate and high impact of publications speak to the exemplary educational value of ASES annual meetings.