Fate of abstracts presented at the 2008 congress of the French Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Society

Publication rate and evidence-based evaluation of abstracts presented at the veterinary endoscopy society annual meeting (2004-2019)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of full-length publication for the 2004-2019 Veterinary Endoscopy Society (VES) annual meeting abstracts and to identify abstract and author characteristics as predictors of publication.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational bibliographical study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Three hundred and eighty-nine abstracts.

METHODS

Abstracts from 2004-2019 Veterinary Endoscopy Society (VES) proceedings and matching full-length publications retrieved from bibliographic databases were systematically reviewed. Variables assessed included species, specimen type (cadaver, live animal, etc.), subdiscipline (orthopedics, internal medicine, etc.), institution, country of origin, study design, level of evidence (LoE), time to publication, number of authors, their credentials, and gender. Logistic regression, Fisher's exact tests and t-tests were used to assess the bivariate relationship between publication and characteristics of the authors and publications.

RESULTS

The overall publication rate for presented abstracts published as full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals was 26%. Median time from abstract presentation to full-length article publication was 430 days. Factors associated with full-length article publication were identified: affiliated institution (P = .01), species studied (P = .04), subdiscipline focus (P = .01), level of evidence (P = .01), number of authors (P = .01), and first author's gender (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Veterinary Endoscopy Society abstracts were commonly categorized into a lower LoE. Abstracts from academic institutions regarding canine patients and soft tissue surgery topics were more likely to be published. Abstracts citing female first authors or with more than 1 author had higher odds of publication.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Data reported provide authors with predictors for publication and identify topics for research opportunities. Veterinary specialty societies may utilize this information when evaluating abstracts.

Identification of abstract features presented at the combined otolaryngology spring meeting predicting publication in impactful peer-reviewed journals

OBJECTIVES

Review abstracts presented at the Combined Otolaryngology Society Meeting (COSM) to determine subsequent publication and identify abstract features predictive of publication in high impact journals.

METHODS

A selection of abstracts accepted in the 2015 COSM scientific programs were retrospectively reviewed. MEDLINE searches via PubMed and Google Scholar were performed to determine publication rates. The Journal of Citation Reports was used to determine impact factors for published abstracts. Binomial regression analyses were used to identify factors related to publication in high impact journals.

RESULTS

62.4% of reviewed abstracts (n = 623) were subsequently published, with a mean publication time of 14 ± 12 months. Abstract features predictive of publication were basic science type, other science type, prospective studies, multi-institutional involvement, and presentation at the American Laryngologic Association and American Otologic Society meetings. Based on Wald score, podium presentation was found to have the biggest effect on publication. Factors positively associated with publication in high impact (impact factor > 2.272) journals were increased author number and sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall publication rate of abstracts selected for presentation at COSM in 2015 was on the higher end of previously reported otolaryngology meetings. Abstracts detailing basic science, other science, prospective and multi-institutional studies were more likely to lead to future publication. Additionally, increased number of authors and sample size lead to publication in higher impact journals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Analysis of conference abstracts of prosthodontic randomised-controlled trials presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015): a cross-sectional study of the relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication rate of conference abstracts of prosthodontic randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) presented at International Association for Dental Research (IADR) general sessions (2002-2015).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study on conference abstracts.

METHODS

Conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015) were obtained. Literature search was performed in multiple databases to confirm the final publication status of conference abstracts. Two investigators independently extracted the data including conference date, origin, presentation type, exact p value, number of centres, institution type, overall conclusion, subspecialty, publication time and journal. The reporting quality of abstracts was assessed by two investigators according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. The relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication was analysed by χ² test.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Final publication rate, demographic characteristics and reporting quality of conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015).

RESULTS

Of the 340 prosthodontic RCT abstracts, 43.24% were published. The mean time to final publication was 22.86 months. Europe contributed the most number of abstracts but Asia and Australia had the highest publication rate. Oral presentation, multicentre trial and complete denture and overdenture subspecialty were associated with a higher publication rate. Reporting quality of eligibility criteria of participants, random assignment and primary outcome results for each group correlated with a higher final publication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015) were unpublished. Oral presentation and multiple centres were associated with higher publication rates. Abstracts' reporting quality addressing participant recruitment, assignment and primary results correlated with trials' validity and applicability. Conference attendees may refer to this research to identify valid and applicable prosthodontic trials but should treat and apply results cautiously.

Full-text publication rate of studies reported as 2013 SoFCOT meeting abstracts

BACKGROUND

Publication of scientific work, although mandatory to ensure dissemination of novel research findings and obtain further funding, can require considerably more time and effort compared to conference presentations. Several national or scientific societies have determined the publication rate of studies reported at their meetings. The French Society for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société française de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, SoFCOT) has not yet measured this parameter. The objective of this study was to (i) evaluate the full-text publication rate of studies accepted in abstract form for podium presentations or posters at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting and (ii) identify characteristics of abstracts associated with subsequent full-text publication.

HYPOTHESIS

The full-text publication rate of abstracts accepted for the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was equal to or greater than the mean reported by national societies, i.e., 44.5%.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Publication rates of the 503 studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting were studied. The time horizon was thus at least 5years. The topic was orthopaedic surgery for 315 (62.6%) abstracts, trauma surgery for 153 (30.4%) abstracts, and fractures in elderly patients - the cross-field theme for that year - for 35 (7.0%) abstracts. Reporting was as a podium presentation for 275 (54.7%) abstracts, an e-poster for 205 (40.8%) abstracts, an instructional course lecture for 20 (4.0%) abstracts, a symposium for 2 (0.4%) abstracts, and a round table for 1 (0.2%) abstract.

RESULTS

The full-text publication rate was 35.6% overall and 47.1% (139 publications) for podium presentations. Mean time from podium or poster presentation at the SoFCOT meeting to full-text publication was 1.2±1.5years (range: -2.5 to 6.1years). The full-text publications had 0.8±2.3 (range: -6 to 11) more authors compared to the abstract. They appeared in 54 journals with a mean impact factor of 1.9±1.3 (range: 0.25 to 13.77; median: 1.41; interquartile range: 1.26 to 2.47). Subgroup comparisons showed that full-text publication was more common for prospective than retrospective studies (50.0% versus 30.5%, p<0.0001) and for studies showing a significant difference (48.6% versus 33.0%, p<0.0001). Systematic reviews were more often published in full than were anecdotal case-reports. The full-text publication rate was also higher for studies reported as podium presentations than as e-posters (47.1% versus 17.6%, p<0.0001). Finally, studies of orthopaedic surgery were more often published in full than were studies of trauma surgery (39.7% versus 28.2%, p=0.033).

DISCUSSION

The 5-year full-text publication rate of studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was consistent with previously reported data. The impact factors of the journals in which the studies were published are evidence of the high quality of the information shared at SoFCOT meetings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic retrospective analysis.

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.

United European Gastroenterology Week scientific abstracts and their progression to full publication

OBJECTIVE

Abstracts presentations at scientific meetings enable rapid dissemination of novel research. The percentage of abstracts that proceed to full publication from differing medical specialties is highly variable. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of abstracts presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All abstracts presented at UEGW between 2009 and 2011 were assessed. Cross-referencing of the first author, senior author and at least one keyword of the abstract was performed using PubMed and EMBASE databases. Abstracts and possible resultant full publications were then examined in tandem to ensure that they represented the same study. Data were also collected on lag time to publication, journal impact factors, country of the author and factors influencing subsequent publication.

RESULTS

A total of 6785 abstracts (1438 oral and 5347 poster presentations) were presented during the period assessed. Of these, 2099 (30.9%) proceeded to full publication in indexed journals. Oral abstract presentations were most likely to proceed to full publication compared with poster presentations (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.56) and were more likely to achieve publication in higher impact journals (median impact factor 4.78 vs. 2.89, P<0.0005). The median lag time to full publication was 15 (IQR: 7-15) months. The Netherlands had the highest United European Gastroenterology abstract conversion rate to full publication (46.8%).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to assess the publication rates of UEGW. Findings are favourable with similar studies from other societies.

Factors affecting peer-reviewed publication of abstracts presented at meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists (2008-2012)

PURPOSE

To review abstracts presented at five consecutive meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists (ECVO), and identify abstract characteristics that affect the probability of their publication in peer-reviewed journals.

METHODS

An online search was conducted for peer-reviewed publications (PRPs) stemming from abstracts from five ECVO meetings (2008-2012). Time to publication and journal were noted. Effects of ocular tissue/discipline, species, type of presentation and study, funding acknowledgment and affiliation, professional qualifications, and nationality of the first and last authors on probability of publication were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of presented abstracts, 29% (87/299) were published as PRPs in Veterinary Ophthalmology (n = 50), other veterinary journals (n = 22), and nonveterinary journals (n = 15). During the 5 years studied, there was no significant difference between the impact factor of Veterinary Ophthalmology and the 25 other journals in which PRPs were published (P = 0.369). Median time to PRP acceptance or publication was 468 days. Independent variables most significant in determining the probability of PRP were oral presentation (P = 0.002), resident authorship (P < 0.0001), and species (P = 0.002), with food animal abstracts having the highest odds ratio. Ocular tissue/discipline (P = 0.13) and type of study (P = 0.33) did not affect publication probability. Funding acknowledgment (P = 0.02), author nationality (P = 0.02), and academic affiliation (P = 0.04) were also significant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication rate of ECVO abstracts is lower, but time to publication is similar, compared with most biomedical meetings.