Publication Rate of Podium Presentations From the North American Spine Society Annual Meetings

Publication Rates Vary Across Orthopaedic Subspecialties: A Longitudinal Analysis of AAOS Abstracts

Background

Presentation of research at national orthopaedic meetings and subsequent publication are important for both information exchange among surgeons and individual academic advancement. However, the academic landscape and pressures that researchers face may differ greatly across different subspecialties. This study attempts to explore and quantify differences in research presented at national conferences and its implication on ultimate likelihood of publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Methods

All abstracts from the Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) from 2016 and 2017 were reviewed and categorized based on subspecialty focus. Resulting publications were identified using a systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Multivariate binary logistic regression modelling was used to assess the predictive value of abstract characteristics on eventual publication.

Results

A total of 1805 abstracts from the 2016 and 2017 AAOS conferences were reviewed. The overall publication rate of abstracts following the AAOS meetings was 71.6%, with an average time to publication from abstract submission deadline and impact factor of 19.8 months and 2.878, respectively. Statistical differences were observed across subspecialties with respect to publication rate (p<0.001), time to publication (p<0.001), and impact factor (p<0.001). The subspecialty with the highest publication rate, largest impact factor, and shortest average time to publication was Sports Medicine with 83.2%, 3.98, and 17.6 months, respectively; despite lower average sample size (p<0.001) and frequency of multicenter design (p<0.001) compared with other subspecialties. The subspecialty with the lowest publication rate and impact factor was Hand and Wrist with 53.3% and 1.41, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrates a lower likelihood for internationally authored abstracts (OR: 0.75, p=0.021) and higher likelihood for basic science abstracts (OR: 1.52, p-value=0.023) to reach publication.

Conclusion

Differences in publication rate across orthopaedic subspecialties were observed with articles in sports medicine more likely to be published, published quickly, and featured in a higher impact factor journals. Understanding these differences, and how they relate to the publication and promotion of novel research, is important for orthopaedic researchers. Level of Evidence: IV.

Machine learning models can predict subsequent publication of North American Spine Society (NASS) annual general meeting abstracts

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Academic meetings serve as an opportunity to present and discuss novel ideas. Previous studies have identified factors predictive of publication without generating predictive models. Machine learning (ML) presents a novel tool capable of generating these models. As such, the objective of this study was to use ML models to predict subsequent publication of abstracts presented at a major surgical conference.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Database study.

METHODS

All abstracts from the North American Spine Society (NASS) annual general meetings (AGM) from 2013-2015 were reviewed. The following information was extracted: number of authors, institution, location, conference category, subject category, study type, data collection methodology, human subject research, and FDA approval. Abstracts were then searched on the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases for publication. ML models were trained to predict whether the abstract would be published or not. Quality of models was determined by using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). The top ten most important factors were extracted from the most successful model during testing.

RESULTS

A total of 1119 abstracts were presented, with 553 (49%) abstracts published. During training, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy metrics was the partial least squares (AUC of 0.77±0.05, accuracy of 75.5%±4.7%). During testing, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy was the random forest (AUC of 0.69, accuracy of 67%). The top ten features for the random forest model were (descending order): number of authors, year, conference category, subject category, human subjects research, continent, and data collection methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study attempting to use ML to predict the publication of complete articles after abstract presentation at a major academic conference. Future studies should incorporate deep learning frameworks, cognitive/results-based variables and aim to apply this methodology to larger conferences across other fields of medicine to improve the quality of works presented.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting

BACKGROUND

Presentations at scientific conferences are an important method of research dissemination, with abstracts often used to inform clinical practice. Abstract to publication ratio is a commonly used tool for determining meeting quality. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate for abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting (AOA ASM) between 2012 and 2015 inclusive and identify reasons for non-publication.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to determine whether each abstract presented at AOA ASMs between 2012 and 2015 was associated with a full text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Where a publication could not be located, the presenter was contacted to confirm the reason for non-publication.

RESULTS

A total of 1130 abstracts were submitted (951 oral and 179 posters), and 573 resulted in full-text peer-reviewed publications (51%). The majority of publications (73%) were published within 2 years of presentation. There was no difference in likelihood of publication for oral presentations compared to posters, nor in the rate of publication across the 4 years of meetings. Common reasons for non-publication were lack of time (32%), publication considered low priority (27%) and journal rejections (22%).

CONCLUSION

The overall publication rate for abstracts presented at the AOA ASM is 51%, which is an increase from the 1998 ASM (31%). This publication rate is higher than many similar Australian meetings and on par with other international orthopaedic and subspecialty meetings. Future research should investigate potential publication bias and methods to minimise barriers to publication.

Conference abstracts-what gets published, when, and from where?

BACKGROUND

Scientific meetings provide a platform for disseminating new research. Abstracts presented at these meetings are frequently published as full-length papers in peer-reviewed journals. The primary aims of this study were to determine the publication rate and time to publication of abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) and World Federation of Orthodontists (WFO) congresses in 2015. The secondary aim was to identify factors predicting the publication of abstracts.

METHODS

The congress abstracts were identified from the congress report or organizers. Systematic searches of the PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed to identify papers based on the abstracts identified. Abstract titles, first and last authors' last name, and keywords were used to identify whether an abstract resulted in a publication. Abstracts published as full-length articles were then analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 208 abstracts were identified, of which 46.6% were published as full-length articles. The median time to publication was 17 months after the EOS congress, and 8.5 months after the WFO congress. Abstracts presented orally were more likely to be published than those presented as posters. Abstracts from Europe were more likely to result in publication. The subject and setting of the study were poor predictors of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the abstracts presented at the EOS and WFO congresses in 2015 led to full publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The mode of presentation and the region of origin of the research were good predictors of publication.

A seat at the table: an invitation to the SRS podium via the study group

PURPOSE

The SRS annual meeting (SRS-AM) represents the pinnacle of research in the field of spinal deformity. Spine surgery research was historically based on single-surgeon experience, but an increasing number of abstracts presented at SRS-AM are conducted by multicenter study groups, which may have improved the quality of literature available to surgeons. We sought to determine the proportion of SRS-AM podium presentations (PP) resulting from study groups over a 15-year period.

METHODS

1874 PP from the 2005-2019 SRS-AM were reviewed to determine if they resulted from a study group or multicenter collaboration. Abstracts were also classified as pediatric- or adult-focused. Pearson correlations were calculated to analyze changes in the proportion of study group or multicenter PP.

RESULTS

The number of SRS PP increased from 102 to 171 from 2005 to 2019. 381 (20.3%) PP were identified as a study group product, while 536 (28.6%) resulted from multicenter collaboration. The proportion of study group PP increased by 0.9% annually from 8.8 to 26.9% (r² = 0.44, p = 0.007), while multicenter PP increased by 1.2% annually from 11.8 to 40.9% (r² = 0.51, p = 0.003). A greater proportion of study group PP were level of evidence I or II studies compared to those not resulting from the work of study groups (53.8 vs 19.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

SRS-AM PP resulting from research study groups and multicenter collaborations increased over threefold from 2005 to 2019. Spine surgeons are taking a more proactive approach to produce more generalizable research with higher level of evidence through multicenter study groups, allowing them to make more informed decisions to ultimately improve surgical outcomes for patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves (Spine Summit).

METHODS

The authors used a search algorithm in PubMed to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Spine Summit from 2007 to 2012. The variables assessed were presentation modality, topic, meeting year, publication year, destiny journal and its 5-year impact factor (IF), country, and citation count (retrieved from the Scopus database).

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred thirty-six abstracts were analyzed; 502 were oral presentations and 934 were digital poster presentations. The publication rate was 53.97% (775/1436). The mean time from presentation to publication was 1.35 ± 1.97 years (95% CI 1.21-1.49 years). The mean citation count of published articles was 40.55 ± 55.21 (95% CI 36.66-44.44). Oral presentations had a higher publication rate (71.51%, 359/502) than digital posters (44.54%, 416/934; OR 3.13, 95% CI 2.48-3.95, p < 0.001). Oral presentations had a higher number of citations (55.51 ± 69.00, 95% CI 48.35-62.67) than digital posters (27.64 ± 34.88, 95% CI 24.28-31.00, p < 0.001). The mean IF of published articles was 3.48 ± 2.91 (95% CI 3.27-3.70). JNS: Spine (191/775, 24.64%), Spine (103/775, 13.29%), and Neurosurgery (56/775, 7.23%) had the greatest number of published articles. The US represented the highest number of published articles (616/775, 79.48%).

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate of the Spine Summit is among the highest compared to other spine meetings. Many of the abstracts initially presented at the meeting are further published in high-IF journals and had a high citation count. Therefore, the Spine Summit maintains its high standards of scientific papers, which reflects the high quality of the research performed in the spine surgery field in North America.

Abstract to publication rate: Do all the papers presented in conferences see the light of being a full publication?

BACKGROUND

Every year the scientific sessions of Annual National Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society (ANCIPS) are marked by presentation of free papers, posters, and award paper sessions, which are usually meant for presentation of new research which is not yet published. Hence, it is expected that these papers will be published in near future so that the scientific literature is distributed and shared with wider audience.

AIM

This paper aims to evaluate the abstract to publication rate of papers presented during ANCIPS in the years 2012-2014.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this study, all the free papers, posters, and award papers presented during the ANCIPS of 2012-2014 were listed, and electronic searches were carried out to search for published articles. In addition, one of the authors of papers not found in the electronic searches were contacted through E-mail.

RESULTS

A total of 1081 papers were presented during the ANCIPS in the 3 year period under study. Of these, 64 were award papers, 622 were free papers, and 395 were posters. Majority (n = 807; 74.6%) of these could be categorized as research data-based presentations; this was followed by case reports/series (203; 18.8%), review of literature (n = 35; 3.3%), and others (n = 36; 3.3%). Overall, only 27% of the papers were published after at least 5 years of the presentation. Of all the award papers, 69.6% of papers were published, whereas only 26.8% of free oral papers and 22.5% of free posters were published. About half (45.6%) of the papers were published in national journals. In terms of indexing, among those which were published, 62.8% were published in Medline-indexed (PubMed-listed) Journals with a mean impact factor of 1.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that only 27% of the abstracts presented during the ANCIPS are ultimately published as full text articles in the next 5 years.

Analysis of Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Podium Presentations for the Last Seven Years: Implications of an SRS Annual Meeting Abstract Registry

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of abstracts of SRS podium presentations from 2011 to 2017.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to demonstrate trends in topics of SRS podium presentations and to create an abstract registry for future deformity research.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Podium presentations at the SRS annual meetings are considered excellent for their quality research in current areas of interest. Knowing the trends of these studies would help surgeons understand current interests in spinal deformity.

METHODS

Abstract books from 2011 to 2017 were retrieved and titles were extracted. From each title and abstract body, keywords were identified and collected. Keywords were categorized into several groups: subjects of study, topics not related to treatment, conservative treatment, surgery, treatment result, complications, revision, long-term follow-up, cost, and questionnaire. The frequency of each keyword was ranked to represent areas of interest, and trended according to year.

RESULTS

The most popular key words in each group were AIS, prognostic factor, posterior surgery, sagittal alignment, and nerve and cord safety. There has been an increasing trend for AIS, EOS, NM, ASD, tumors, etiology, pathology, prognostic factors, radiographic diagnoses, radiographic parameters, and questionnaire/database studies. There has been a decreasing trend for conservative treatment, postoperative care, growing rod, pedicle screws, hooks, bleeding, and radiation safety.

CONCLUSION

We report the trend of SRS podium presentation. We hope that these data will be of interest to our members as a representation of where interests have been for the SRS, and these data can be the foundation of an SRS AM abstract registry for spinal deformity research.

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 podium presentations from the orthopaedic research society annual meeting

Annual scientific meetings serve as a forum for dissemination of new research findings. Presentations should be of high scientific quality as they have the potential to impact future research projects and current clinical practice. The publication rate of podium presentations at an annual meeting can be used to assess the quality of the research presented. The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rate of podium presentations at the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) annual meeting. All podium presentations from the 2012 to 2014 annual ORS meetings were identified. Abstracts were categorized into an orthopaedic topic. A PubMed search was performed to determine if an abstract reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The publication rate was determined for each year. Of the 1063 podium presentations identified, 640 (60.2%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. No significant differences were observed in the publication rate between the orthopaedic topics (p = 0.3414). The majority (75.9%) of published abstracts reached publication within 2 years of presentation and the average time to publication was 17.0 months. Abstracts were published in 151 different journals with an average impact factor of 4.46. Time to publication varied significantly by journal (p = 0.025). Journal of Orthopaedic Research, Journal of Biomechanics, PLoS ONE, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, and Bone were the most common publication journals. This study provides insight into the quality of podium presentations at the ORS annual meeting. The ORS annual meeting compares favorably to other orthopaedic surgery meetings. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:288-292, 2019.