High Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at Lumbar Spine Research Society Meetings

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 rates of abstracts presented across 6 major spine specialty conferences

Background

Although scientific researchers aim to present their projects at academic conferences as a step toward publication, not all projects mature to become a peer-reviewed manuscript. The publication rate of meetings can be utilized to assess the quality of presented research. Our objective was to evaluate the contemporary publication rate of abstracts presented at spine conferences.

Methods

We reviewed annual meeting programs of North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Spine Global Spine Congress (GSC), Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS), and Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) from 2017 to 2019. Abstracts were identified as published from PubMed and Google search. From published manuscripts, journal name and open access status was collected. Journal impact factors were collected from the 2021 Journal Citation Reports.

Results

A total of 3,091/5,722 (54%) abstracts were published, ranging from 44.5% to 66.3%. Publication rate of posters and podiums ranged from 39.8% to 64.8% and 51.6% to 67.2%, respectively. Podium presentations were more likely to be published than posters (59.6% vs. 47.2%, p<.001). Only NASS (61.4% vs. 61.8%) and LSRS (64.6% vs. 67.2%) demonstrated similar publication rates for posters and podiums. Award nominated abstracts had a significantly higher publication rate (68.0% vs. 53.4%, p<.001). Among journals with an impact factor, the median overall impact factor was 3.27 and was similar between all conferences except GSC, which was slightly lower (2.72 vs. 3.27, p<.001).

Conclusions

Fifty-four percent of abstracts were published with 3 societies (NASS, LSRS, and SRS) having rates of over 60%. Moreover, NASS and LSRS demonstrated high publication rates regardless of presentation type. These numbers are significantly higher than previous reports suggesting that these conferences allow attendees to review high quality evidence that is likely to achieve peer-reviewed publication while obtaining an early look at original research.

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the Saudi Ophthalmology Society Conferences 2015-2018

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to determine the publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual Saudi Ophthalmology Society (SOS) Conferences from 2015 to 2018.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study on abstracts collected from the scientific programs for the SOS meetings from 2015 to 2018. Titles and first authors' names were used in the search process on PubMed. A Chi-square test was conducted to compare between the categorical variables. Kruskal-Wallis test was used for nonnormally distributed variables.

RESULTS

A total of 365 abstracts were presented in the SOS Conferences from 2015 to 2018. In the SOS meetings (2015-2018), the publication rate was 45.7%. Seventy-two (43.1%) of the published abstracts were published in journals with an impact factor. The mean impact factor was 1.4 ± 1.9. The median time to publication was 12.0 months (range: 0-60 months). On univariate analysis, basic science (P < 0.001), abstracts on rare diseases (P = 0.003), affiliation with eye hospitals (P < 0.001), and public hospitals (0.007) were associated with a higher publication rate. On multivariate analysis, basic science studies (odds ratio [OR]: 4.23, confidence interval [CI]: 1.77-10.12, P = 0.001), rare topic-related abstracts (OR: 2.03, CI: 1.22-3.38, P = 0.007), and eye center affiliation (OR: 1.67, CI: 1.03-2.68, P = 0.036) were associated with a better publication rate. The factors associated with publication in high impact factor journals were oral abstracts (P = 0.007) and noncase report abstracts (P = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

Basic science studies, rare topic-related abstracts, and first author affiliation with an eye center were all associated with a higher publication rate. Orally presented and noncase report abstracts increased the chance of publication in higher impact factor journals.

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.

Study Groups and POSNA: A Review of Podium Presentations From 2006 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Study groups are multicenter collaborations aimed at improving orthopaedic decision-making through higher-powered, more generalizable studies. New research is disseminated through peer-reviewed literature and academic meetings, including the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) annual meeting, which brings together academic and medical professionals in pediatric orthopaedics. The goal of this study was to identify patterns in podium presentations (PP) at the POSNA annual meeting resulting from multicenter study groups during a 15-year period.

METHODS

A total of 2065 PP from the 2006 to 2020 POSNA annual meetings were identified. The abstracts of each PP were reviewed to determine if they resulted from a multicenter study group and for characteristics including subspecialty focus. PP from 2006 to 2018 were further reviewed for publication in academic journals. Pearson correlation was used to assess change in the number of PP resulting from study groups overtime. Univariate analysis was used to compare characteristics of PP based on study group involvement (significance P<0.05).

RESULTS

The proportion of PP resulting from study groups increased from 2.2% (n=2) in 2006 to 9.4% in 2020 (n=16) (R2=0.519, P=0.002). Of the PP resulting from study groups, 52.9% focused on spine, 26.5% on hip, 2.9% on sports, and 2.0% on trauma. This is compared with a distribution of 16.7% (P<0.001) spine, 15.9% (P=0.005) hip, 9.5% (P=0.026) sports, and 14.6% (P<0.001) trauma focus of PP not from study groups. There was no difference in publication rate of PP resulting from study groups compared with those that were not (69.1% vs. 66.2%, P=0.621).

CONCLUSIONS

In the 15-year period from 2006 to 2020, there was a nearly 5-fold increase in the proportion of POSNA PP resulting from study groups. Spine surgery is disproportionately supported by study groups, suggesting that there is an opportunity to establish new study groups across the breadth of pediatric orthopaedics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Head and neck research in plastic surgery-Ahead of the rest? An analysis of abstracts presented at British association of plastic reconstructive and aesthetic surgeons meetings

INTRODUCTION & AIMS

Historically, the head and neck (H&N) discipline has been integral to the service a plastic surgeon provides. Recently, it has been postulated that its popularity is declining. The output of scientific meetings may indicate the popularity of each sub-speciality interest, also allowing comparison with other H&N conferences.

AIM

To analyse the proportion of H&N themed, podium and poster presentations from British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons' (BAPRAS) scientific meetings and the resulting contribution to published literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

H&N-themed abstracts were identified from finalised programmes of the biannual BAPRAS meetings between 2008 and 2015. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched using keywords and author names from each abstract to identify subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

RESULTS

Overall, 19.3% (350/1815) of BAPRAS abstracts were H&N themed. The publication rate of H&N abstracts was 40.3% (141/350), comprising 43.0% (114/265) of podium and 31.8% (27/85) of poster presentations. H&N reconstruction and cleft and craniofacial were the most frequent topics, with facial palsy having the lowest conversion rate at 15.4%. The mean time to publication was 17.8 months. Research was published in 39 journals, with a mean impact factor of 2.151 (range = 0.772-11.541). The most popular journal was Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery (JPRAS; 31.7%; 45/141). Published abstracts originated from 17 different countries. The senior author was a plastic surgeon in 77.3% of abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

From the multiple potential sub-specialties, H&N-themed abstracts consistently contributed 20% of all research presented at BAPRAS. The 40.3% publication rate exceeds the international average of scientific meetings. H&N remains a prominent field in the armamentarium of a plastic surgeon.

Abstract to publication conversion in pediatric critical care medicine in Pakistan

Background

To determine the rate of conversion of abstracts presented at conferences into full-text articles published in peer-reviewed journals in the field of pediatric critical care medicine (PCCM) in a developing country.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed PCCM abstracts from Pakistan presented at national and international pediatric and critical care conferences over 10 years (January 2010 to March 2020). Data included abstract characteristics, such as presentation (poster/oral), presenter (fellow/resident), time of meeting (month and year), type of meeting, study design and topic; and publication characteristics, such as journal name, time (month and year) and first author. The primary outcome was publication rate of PCCM abstracts presented in meetings and time (months) from presentation to publication.

Results

A total of 79 PCCM abstracts were presented in 20 meetings during the study period. There were 65 poster presentations (82.28%), of which 63 (79.74%) were presented at international critical care conferences and all presenters were PCCM fellows. In total, 64 (81%) abstracts were descriptive observational studies (retrospective: 50, 63.29%) and prospective (14, 17.72%). Only one was an interventional randomized controlled trial. The publication rate of PCCM abstracts was 63.3% (50/79) and the mean time to publication was 12.39±13.61 months. The publication rate was significantly correlated to the year of publication (P<0.001).

Conclusions

The PCCM abstract publication rate and mean time from presentation to publication was 63.3% and 12.39±13.61 months, respectively, in a developing country.

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.

Trends and publication rates of abstracts presented at the British Association of Head and Neck Oncologists' (BAHNO) annual meetings: 2009 - 2015

The British Association of Head and Neck Oncologists (BAHNO) hosts an annual meeting at which research from all specialties involved in the management of head and neck oncology is presented. We have analysed the rate of publication of the abstracts presented, and reviewed the finalised programmes from the meetings between 2009 and 2015. The 2014 meeting was excluded as it was a combined international meeting. Key terms were searched in PubMed and Google Scholar to identify publications in peer-reviewed journals. If none was identified, these platforms were searched for the authors' names. Published abstracts were excluded. Study and journal demographic data were extracted. A total of 363 abstracts were presented, including 75 oral, 271 poster, and 17 of unclear presentation method. The total publication rate was 31.1%, representing 46.7% of oral abstracts and 27.3% of poster presentations. The mean time to publication was 16.5 months. Research was published in 45 individual journals with a mean (range) impact factor of 2.559 (0.886-36.418). There was a trend towards an increasing number of presentations over time with a decreasing publication rate. However, there was no trend in mean impact factor by year. The publication rate of abstracts presented at the BAHNO annual meetings is comparable with that of other large otolaryngology and head and neck conferences. The mean impact factor has not previously been utilised within this field, but may prove a useful metric that enables monitoring of the quality of presented research and comparison of the impact of the conferences.

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.