Differences Between ADEA Annual Session Poster Abstracts and Their Corresponding Full Published Articles

Publication outcome of research presented at the European Congress of Endocrinology: a web scraping-based analysis and critical appraisal

PURPOSE

The current study aimed to determine the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the 16th European Congress of Endocrinology (ECE 2014).

METHODS

All presentations were collected with the web scraping - Python coding from the official website and converted into Google Scholar and PubMed search links with coding. A particular interface was coded to evaluate the results. An online survey was sent to the authors to assess the impact of congress on their publication.

RESULTS

A total of 1205 abstracts from 71 countries were featured at the congress of which, 1145 (95%) were poster presentations (PP), and 60 (5%) were oral presentations. Subsequently, 341 abstracts (28.3%) were published as a full paper. There was no major change from the abstract in 73.3% of full articles whereas 68.9% had at least one minor change. OP had higher conversion rates to publication than PP (65% vs 26.4; p = 0.01) and a higher median number of citations than PP (12 vs 6; p = 0.01). The median time to publication was 12 months (IQR: 2-24 months). OP was published in journals with a higher median impact factor (IF) than PP (5 vs 2.94; p = 0.01). Multi-country collaborative studies turned into more publications than single-country studies (OR: 3.91 95% CI: 2.52-6.06; p < 0.01). The congress's potential IF was calculated as 3.18. Among the authors responded to survey, 95% indicated that presenting at the congress was valuable for preparation of their publication.

CONCLUSIONS

This first study evaluating the publication outcome of an international endocrinology congress suggests a 28.3% publication ratio with low discrepancy and 3.18 IF for ECE 2014.

Abstracts presented at the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) Congresses: Publication fate and discrepancies with full-length articles

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the full publication proportion (FPP) of abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 EAO Congresses, analyse the discrepancies between abstracts and their full publications, and explore potential predictors of FPP and discrepancies.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 EAO Congresses were retrieved. Associated full publications were identified by searching PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar. Discrepancies between abstracts and full publications were identified, classified and evaluated using a discrepancy score. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to describe cumulative FPP over time. Predictors for FPP and the discrepancy score were analysed using cox regression modelling and a linear regression model, respectively.

RESULTS

850 abstracts were included. The overall FPP was 36.4% with a median time lapse of 12 months. Higher FPP were significantly associated with oral presentation (HR=2.33; 95% CI: 1.68 to 3.22; p<0.001), multiple affiliations (HR =1.32; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.73; p=0.048) and presence of statistical tests (HR =1.78; 95% CI: 1.36 to 2.32; p<0.001). 91.3% pairs had at least one minor change from the abstract and 70.9% had at least one major change. Greater discrepancy score was significantly associated with longer time lapse (B=0.06; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.08; p<0.001) and being clinical research (B=1.30; 95% CI: 0.52 to 2.08; p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-six percent of abstracts presented at the EAO Congresses were published. Among these, more than two-thirds showed at least one major change in their full publications. Abstracts presented in oral implantology conferences should not be relied upon to inform practice.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.

Full text publication rates of research abstracts presented at the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Congresses in the last 20 years

AIM

To evaluate the full-text publication rates of scientific research abstracts presented at the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Congresses held between 1993 and 2013 (a total of 11 occasions) and to determine factors associated with the manuscripts.

METHODOLOGY

An electronic database search was conducted from January 2015 to December 2016 to identify full text English written publications of the research abstracts presented at the last 11 ESE Biennial Congresses from 1993 to 2013. For each occasion, research abstract information were retrieved from the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) through the official website of the ESE and the following parameters for each abstract presentation were recorded: Year of presentation, first author's affiliation, geographic origin, and type of study. Following full-text article identification, additional information was recorded such as: Year and journal of publication, elapsed time until full publication and number of authors per presentation and publication.

RESULTS

A total of 1165 research abstracts were presented, of which 401 (34.4%) were finally published as full-length articles. Overall 235 articles (58.6%) were published either in the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ, 35.7%) or Journal of Endodontics (JOE, 22.9%). The mean time between abstract presentation and full-text publication was 18.95 months. Munich (2001) had the highest publication rate (44%) whereas Lisbon (2013) had the highest number of published articles (77). Turkey was the country with the highest number of published abstracts (56). However, the Netherlands was the country with the highest number of publications related to the number of presentations (21/26) (80.7%). Differences in authorship between presentation and full publication were found in 179 (44.6%) articles.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of research abstracts presented at ESE congresses were not published in peer reviewed journals. Authors prefer to publish their research papers in international journals with high impact factor. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Discrepancies Between Plastic Surgery Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Length Manuscript Publications

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this bibliometric study was to assess the discrepancies between plastic surgery meeting abstracts and subsequent full-length manuscript publications.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Plastic Surgery from 2010 to 2011 were compared with matching manuscript publications. Discrepancies between the abstract and the subsequent manuscript were categorized as major (changes in the purpose, methods, study design, sample size, statistical analysis, results, and conclusions) and minor (changes in the title and authorship) variations.

RESULTS

The overall discrepancy rate was 96 %, with at least one major (76 %) and/or minor (96 %) variation. There were inconsistencies between the study title (56 %), authorship (92 %), purpose (6 %), methods (20 %), study design (36 %), sample size (51.2 %), statistical analysis (14 %), results (20 %), and conclusions (8 %) of manuscripts compared with their corresponding meeting abstracts.

CONCLUSION

As changes occur before manuscript publication of plastic surgery meeting abstracts, caution should be exercised in referencing abstracts or altering surgical practices based on abstracts' content.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .