Publication rates of abstracts presented at five national pharmacy association meetings

Factors promoting research activities among Japanese pharmacists: a questionnaire survey

Pharmacists are expected to demonstrate their expertise in clinical practice and conduct research activities to generate new evidence. However, the factors promoting research activities among pharmacists remain unclear. Therefore, we investigated the research activities of Japanese pharmacists through a questionnaire survey and examined the factors contributing to the promotion of research activities. A web-based questionnaire using Google Forms was disseminated across pharmacists working in community pharmacies, drugstores, hospitals, and clinics. The questionnaire included respondents' backgrounds, research activities, and research environments. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the factors promoting pharmacists' research activities, with experience in research paper acceptance as the objective variable. In total, 401 responses were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 54.1% were hospital pharmacists, and 77.1% were pharmacists with > 5 years of pharmacist experience. Furthermore, 50.4% of the pharmacists had presented at conferences, and 22.2% had experience in research paper acceptance. The influential factors were "master's degree or higher," "number of affiliated academic societies," "acquisition of specialists/certified pharmacists," and "daily availability of a consultant for writing research papers." This study revealed the factors contributing to the promotion of research activities among pharmacists. We believe that our findings will help promote research among pharmacists.

Perceptions of PGY1 pharmacy resident research, final projects, and associated publication outcomes

PURPOSE

To describe the publication rate and the research landscape of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pharmacy residency programs within the Great Lakes Pharmacy Resident Conference (GLPRC) region.

METHODS

This study was comprised of two elements. The first was a retrospective cohort evaluation of previously presented GLPRC research abstracts and publication rates. The second was a 45-question survey of current GLPRC PGY1 residency program directors (RPDs). The primary objective of this study was to evaluate publication rates of PGY1 abstracts submitted to the GLPRC. Secondary objectives included describing RPD perceptions of the value of research, identifying perceived barriers to research completion, and characterizing current and ideal components of residency research programs.

RESULTS

A total of 447 PGY1 abstracts were reviewed; 47 (10.5%) resulted in manuscript publication within a peer-reviewed journal. There was no significant difference in publication rates between years (9.5% in 2013 vs 13.8% in 2016 vs 7.4% in 2019, P = 0.166). One hundred ten PGY1 RPDs in the GLPRC region were invited to participate in the survey, with 33 (30%) responses received. The majority of programs (94%) required manuscript submission to the RPD prior to graduation; however, only 12% required submission for peer-reviewed publication. Major barriers to research completion included lack of preceptor time and knowledge regarding the research and publication process, as well as lack of resident interest and knowledge of the process.

CONCLUSION

The current publication rate of PGY1 research abstracts presented at the GLPRC remains at approximately 10%, which is unchanged from a previous investigation. RPD perceptions of the research process and barriers also remain largely unchanged or less favorable.

Publication rates and characteristics of PGY2 psychiatric pharmacy resident research projects

Introduction

To describe the publication rates and characteristics of PGY2 psychiatric pharmacy residency projects presented as a poster presentation at the annual meetings of the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists (CPNP) from 2002 to 2018. (As of 2022 the organization is under the name, American Association of Psychiatric Pharmacists.).

Methods

CPNP abstracts from even years were strategically searched in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. If a publication was identified, additional data were collected for characterization, including study information, journal information, author information, institutional affiliation, publication year, and time to publication.

Results

A total of 348 abstracts were evaluated. Publication in a journal was achieved for 60 projects (17.2%), with publication rates decreasing from 2012 to 2018. The mean time to publication was 17.3 months after completion of the residency, with most projects published at 8 months. More than half (51.7%) of these projects were published in a psychiatric pharmacy journal affiliated with CPNP. Study designs were predominantly retrospective, observational, cohort studies with a focus on evaluation of a drug therapy outcome. The PGY2 resident was the first author in 90% of the publications. Forty percent included other health care professionals outside of pharmacy as a coauthor. PGY2 residencies affiliated with academic institutions had overall higher publications rates.

Discussion

Publication rates for PGY2 psychiatric pharmacy residency projects are low and are decreasing over time despite an increasing number of PGY2 psychiatric pharmacy residency programs. This publication rate is lower than that reported in the literature for PGY2 critical care residency programs. The downward trend of publication rates for PGY2 psychiatric pharmacy residency projects is concerning.

Publication rates of hematology/oncology abstracts presented at major pharmacy association meetings

INTRODUCTION

Professional conferences are where research findings are initially presented. Studies suggest many research ideas presented at conferences are never published. Previous studies have demonstrated that the full publication rate of abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings is approximately 20%. The objective of this study was to determine the full publication rate of hematology/oncology abstracts presented at major pharmacy organization annual meetings.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed. Publication status was evaluated for hematology/oncology abstracts presented at annual meetings for the following organizations: American College of Clinical Pharmacy Annual Meeting, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Midyear Clinical Meeting, Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association Annual Meeting, and International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners Annual Meeting. Data collected included the meeting of abstract presentation, number of authors, abstract study type, country of origin, journal of publication, and type of publication. Abstracts presented as trainee research were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 451 oncology abstracts evaluated, the most common topic categories included pharmacotherapy (n = 244; 54.1%), clinical pharmacy practice (n = 84; 18.6%), and operational/compounding (n = 69; 15.3%). The overall publication rate was 17.5% (n = 79). Abstracts were published as full manuscripts over a spread of 48 different journals. Factors associated with full publication included abstracts with more than 5 authors (OR 3.86, 95% CI 2.32-6.43; p < 0.0001) and abstracts presented at oncology-focused pharmacy meetings (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.49-5.72; p = 0.0018).

CONCLUSION

This study showed an overall publication rate of 17.5% for abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings, consistent with prior studies.

A Descriptive Study Examining Trends in Pharmacist-Authored Original Research Publications in the Journal of the American Medical Association Network from 2000 to 2019

Pharmacists are expected to participate in the conduction of research to advance the profession and health care broadly. Additional opportunities for pharmacist research engagement have emerged with the increased integration of clinically trained pharmacists into interprofessional care teams. Research conducted over the past four decades has demonstrated an increasing trend of pharmacist-authored publications in medical journals. The purpose of this study was to build upon this work and investigate trends in pharmacist-authored original research publications within the JAMA Network over the past 20 years. A descriptive study design was used to retrospectively evaluate trends in the numbers of pharmacist-authored publications and authorship within those publications in nine JAMA Network journals. Data were aggregated into ten-year time periods (2000–2009 and 2010–2019) and compared using chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. Overall, pharmacist-authored publications significantly increased over the ten-year period (2.0% to 3.0%, p < 0.001), including in five specific journals: JAMA, JAMA Dermatology, JAMA Neurology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and JAMA Surgery. There was no change in first—and senior-authored publications. While the overall pharmacist publication trend was positive, room for significant growth remains. A deeper understanding of the barriers and facilitators to pharmacist engagement in research is needed, along with strategies to enhance pharmacist research training.

PGY1 resident research projects: Publication rates, project completion policies, perceived values, and barriers

PURPOSE

To assess the publication rates of PGY1 pharmacy residents and to determine the beliefs of pharmacy residency program directors (RPDs) regarding PGY1 residency research projects, the residency-specific policies on publishing, and the perceived barriers to publishing for PGY1 residents.

METHODS

The 2013 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Midyear Clinical Meeting resident poster presentation roster was used to compile the list of PGY1 residents who submitted an abstract. The Web of Science database was searched using the PGY1 residents' name and research title to determine if a publication resulted from the abstract by December 2016. Publication rates were calculated using several demographic subcategories. The PGY1 RPDs identified from the ASHP website (n = 1220) were surveyed to determine how they value the research project, policies regarding publishing at their institution, and potential barriers to publication.

RESULTS

Out of 1419 abstracts from PGY1 residents, 26 (1.8%) resulted in a publication by 2016. Of the 369 RPDs who responded, the majority complimented their programs as favorable environments for completing research, 55% stating that their institutions offered formal research training, 65% stating that they have preceptors specifically assigned for research, and 83% stating that they provide dedicated time to residents to complete their research. The common barriers to publication were difficulty in completing the project in one year and lack of continuity after residency completion.

CONCLUSION

Despite pharmacy residency programs requiring residents to complete a research project, most residents end the residency without a publication. Further research is needed to identify the residents' barriers to publications and resources needed to publish the research projects.

Factors relating to the publication rate of abstracts presented from 2012 to 2015 at the Society for Vascular Surgery Annual Meeting

OBJECTIVE

The Society for Vascular Surgery's Annual Meeting acts as a means of disseminating research findings among vascular surgeons through the presentation of research abstracts. Following presentation at the meeting, research is often compiled into a full-text manuscript and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. However, not all abstracts accepted to the Vascular Annual Meeting (VAM) eventually have a corresponding full-text publication. The objectives of this study were to establish the publication rate of abstracts presented between 2012 and 2015 to the VAM and to identify factors correlating with publication status.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the VAM were available through the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Data extracted from eligible abstracts included level of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence scheme, type of study (prognostic, therapeutic/harm, diagnostic), sample size, and status of outcome (positive, negative, or descriptive findings). Publication status of the abstracts was determined through a comprehensive literature review of PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid (MEDLINE), and Embase. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine factors correlating with publication status.

RESULTS

The publication rate during the study period was 43.0% with a median time to publication of 9 months, with 412 of the 958 abstracts having a corresponding full-text publication in 48 journals with weighted mean impact factor of 3.40. Eleven journals collectively published 372 (90.3%) of the articles, with the Journal of Vascular Surgery publishing 280 (68.0%) of the manuscripts. Our logistic regression model demonstrated that factors positively affecting publication status were a positive status of outcome (odds ratio, 2.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-4.28) and a logarithmic increase in the sample size of the study (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.60). In addition, studies with a corresponding full-text publication had a greater median sample size (250) compared with those without one (143; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

From 2012 to 2015, 43.0% of VAM abstracts had a corresponding full-text publication, with greater sample size and a positive status of outcome positively correlating with likelihood of publication. Studies with negative findings made up a small proportion of conference abstracts (9.6%) and were the least likely to be published. Given the relatively small size of the specialty of vascular surgery, it may be particularly important to be mindful of publication bias. It may be worthwhile to give additional consideration to acceptance of abstracts or publication of studies with negative results that meaningfully contribute to the literature.

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.

Predictors of Publication Rates for Abstracts Presented at the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Annual Meetings

Objective. To examine trends in manuscript publication rates for abstracts presented at the 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) annual meetings. Methods. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed. "New" colleges and schools of pharmacy were defined as receiving accreditation after 1996. Contingency tables and t-tests were applied. Results. There were 1382 abstracts evaluated. The overall publication rate was 20% and there was no difference in publication rates over 15 years. The median time to publication for years 2000, 2005, and 2010 was 15 months. The most frequent journal for publication was the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. The primary analysis identified several predictors for publication, including collaboration, presence of a PhD pharmaceutical program or academic medical center, and use of inferential statistics. There was no difference in manuscript publication when comparing "new" and legacy schools. Conclusion. The publication rate of AACP abstracts has remained steady despite the increase in pharmacy schools and colleges and faculty. Collaboration among institutions was the strongest predictor for publication, highlighting its importance. The low publication rate observed may be attributed to a lack of training for junior faculty, insufficient forums to publish work, or misaligned motivations for scholarship among faculty. These barriers should be examined further.

Engaging in Collaborative Research: Focus on the Pharmacy Practitioner

Research offers an opportunity for investigators to explore unanswered questions, highlight best practices, and engage in collaboration. Clinical research can engage health care professionals to identify treatments or procedures to enhance patient care, quality of life, and outcomes. Research may also include experiences in a unique practice site or teaching methodology of trainees, staff, or patients. The goal of research is to improve individual patient care via dissemination of knowledge through publications. This article aims to highlight the importance of pharmacist-led research in the academic or community medical center and the need for resident-based research and mentorship for the integration of collaborative research and achievement of organizational goals.

Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the 2006 Meeting of the American Academy of Optometry

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were to investigate the publication rates of presentations at the 2006 meeting of the American Academy of Optometry (AAO), differences in the publication rates of platform versus poster presentations, consistency of the meeting abstract compared with the full-length journal article, whether abstracts were clinical or basic science, and when and in which journals articles appeared.

METHODS

Abstracts were obtained directly from the AAO. Literature searches using PubMed and VisionCite were performed to locate peer-reviewed journal articles based on those abstracts. Whether the article was based on a poster or platform presentation, congruence of the information in the abstract and the article (i.e., authorship, title, methods, and conclusions), type of study (clinical or basic science), subject category, and journal and year in which the article appeared were recorded.

RESULTS

We identified 518 proceeding abstracts, 108 of which ultimately were published between 2006 and 2013, giving an overall publication rate of 21%. Thirty-three percent of platform presentations eventually were published versus 18% of posters. Congruency showed that 17% of articles had the same title as the meeting abstract, 36% had the same authorship, and 53% had the same methods. Eighty-one percent of articles were clinical in nature, whereas 19% of them were basic science. Thirty-seven percent of articles dealt with the subjects of cornea and contact lenses. Articles were found in 39 different journals, with 34% of them appearing in Optometry and Vision Science. Eighty-eight percent of articles were published within 4 years after the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate from the 2006 AAO meeting was 21%. Platform presentations were more likely to be published than posters. Congruency rates of abstracts to articles are lower than national meetings in other fields. The vast majority of articles were published within 4 years after the meeting.

Dissemination of Research Results: On the Path to Practice Change

-