Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting

Publication rates and features of abstracts presented at emergency medicine congresses in Türkiye: An analysis of 10,055 abstracts

OBJECTIVES

The domain of emergency medicine (EM) is not only rapidly evolving but also witnessing a significant surge in research publications, particularly in Türkiye. In this context, this study aimed to investigate the publication outcomes of abstracts presented at national EM conferences and evaluate the quality of these publications, thereby contributing to the understanding of the evolving landscape of EM research in Türkiye.

METHODS

To ensure the accuracy and reliability of our findings, we meticulously examined abstracts presented at the annual conferences organized by the EM Association of Türkiye and Emergency Physicians Association of Türkiye from January 2015 to December 2021. We screened public databases such as Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ULAKBIM to identify any subsequent publications of these abstracts. The data on publication dates, and journal impact factors were thoroughly analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 10,055 abstracts, comprising 3794 (37.7%) oral presentations and 6261 (62.3%) poster presentations. Of these, 829 abstracts (8.2%) were later published as full publications in journals indexed in at least one major database. Among the published articles, 36 (4.3%) appeared in Q1 journals, while 346 (41.6%) were published in journals without quartile rankings. The median duration until publication was observed to be 12 months.

CONCLUSION

The publication rate for abstracts presented at EM conferences was 8%, with most articles published within 2 years. Oral presentations had a higher publication rate than poster presentations, indicating higher quality. The authors' affiliations and the studies' designs emerged as pivotal factors influencing the success of publication.

Publication Rates of Oculoplastic Surgery and Orbit Abstracts Presented at Turkish Ophthalmological Association National Congresses: 10-Year Analysis

Objectives

This study aimed to examine the publication rates of abstracts related to oculoplastic surgery and orbital diseases presented at the Turkish Ophthalmological Association National Congresses (TOA-NCs) in 2013-2022.

Materials and Methods

The study included abstracts in the field of oculoplastic surgery and orbital diseases accepted for presentation at TOA-NCs between 2013 and 2022. These abstracts were reviewed in terms of presentation type (oral, poster), number of authors, study setting (university, training and research, private, public, or abroad hospital), study type (case, clinical, or basic science), study topic (eyelid, lacrimal system, orbit, or thyroid eye disease), journal publication status, time to publication (months), publishing journal (national, international), and journal impact factor.

Results

A total of 802 presentations (233 [29.1%] oral, 569 [70.9%] poster) were included in the study. Of these, 122 abstracts (15.2%) were published (56 [45.9%] oral, 66 [54.1%] poster presentations). The publication rate for oral presentations was higher than for poster presentations (24.0% vs. 11.6%, p<0.05). The median publication time and journal impact factor were 18 months (range, 1-88) and 1.3 (range, 0.1-5.17), respectively. Case abstracts had a publication rate of 6.3%, while clinical studies had a higher rate of 21.8% (p<0.05). Publication time was negatively correlated with journal impact factor (r=-0.211, p=0.039).

Conclusion

The 10-year publication rate (15.2%) of abstracts presented in the field of oculoplastic surgery and orbit at TOA-NCs was found to be lower than that of other international ophthalmology meetings. It is noteworthy that the publication rate of oral abstracts and clinical studies was significantly higher. To enhance the scientific publication potential in Türkiye, which has many active ophthalmologists and ophthalmology clinics, it would be beneficial to identify and address negative factors, support clinicians, and strengthen their connections with the basic medical sciences.

Academic benchmark of highly influential ophthalmologists listed in the ophthalmology power list

OBJECTIVE

To review the academic benchmark of highly influential ophthalmologists listed in the ophthalmology '2020 Power List'.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, the academic profiles, achievements, and bibliometric profiles of all ophthalmologists listed in the 'Power List of 2020', regarded as the most influential figures in ophthalmology today, were analysed.

RESULTS

Ninety-five ophthalmologists were studied, after excluding 10 non-ophthalmologist figures that are also listed. Their mean age is 63 ± 11.7 years, with a strong male predominance (84.2%, n = 80 males, P < 0.001). All have a medical doctorate degree, and 31% (n = 29) have a Philosophy Doctor (PhD) degree. Fifty-three percent (n = 51) are graduates of medical schools in the United States (US). However, non-US ophthalmologists have a higher percentage of PhD degrees (41%, 18/44) vs. US ophthalmologists (22%, 11/51, P = 0.069), and also a longer duration of post-residency training (5.8 ± 3.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.9 years, P < 0.001). The most common subspecialty was cataract and anterior segment surgery (42%, n = 40). The mean and standard deviation of the total number of papers published by ophthalmologists were 307.4 ± 226.3, with a mean citation record of 11,835.7 ± 13,330.5, and a mean h-index of 46.9 ± 27.9.

CONCLUSIONS

The ophthalmologists listed on the 'Power List of 2020' are leaders with high accomplishments and an established interest in research evidenced by a high record of publications and an exceptional bibliometric profile. The list contains more US figures with a gender disparity, demonstrating a greater difficulty for international ophthalmologists, especially women, in achieving this high level of recognition.

Consistency between trials presented at conferences, their subsequent publications and press releases

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the extent to which trials presented at major international medical conferences in 2016 consistently reported their study design, end points and results across conference abstracts, published article abstracts and press releases.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials presented at 12 major medical conferences in the USA in 2016. Conferences were identified from a list of the largest clinical research meetings aggregated by the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association and were included if their abstracts were publicly available. From these conferences, all late-breaker clinical trials were included, as well as a random selection of all other clinical trials, such that the total sample included up to 25 trial abstracts per conference.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

First, it was determined if trials were registered and reported results in an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors-approved clinical trial registry. Second, it was determined if trial results were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Finally, information on trial media coverage and press releases was collected using LexisNexis. For all published trials, the consistency of reporting of the following characteristics was examined, through comparison of the trials' conference and publication abstracts: primary efficacy endpoint definition, safety endpoint identification, sample size, follow-up period, primary end point effect size and characterisation of trial results. For all published abstracts with press releases, the characterisation of trial results across conference abstracts, press releases and publications was compared. Authors determined consistency of reporting when identical information was presented across abstracts and press releases. Primary analyses were descriptive; secondary analyses included χ2 tests and multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 240 clinical trials presented at 12 major medical conferences, 208 (86.7%) were registered, 95 (39.6%) reported summary results in a registry and 177 (73.8%) were published; 82 (34.2%) were covered by the media and 68 (28.3%) had press releases. Among the 177 published trials, 171 (96.6%) reported the definition of primary efficacy endpoints consistently across conference and publication abstracts, whereas 96/128 (75.0%) consistently identified safety endpoints. There were 107/172 (62.2%) trials with consistent sample sizes across conference and publication abstracts, 101/137 (73.7%) that reported their follow-up periods consistently, 92/175 (52.6%) that described their effect sizes consistently and 157/175 (89.7%) that characterised their results consistently. Among the trials that were published and had press releases, 32/32 (100%) characterised their results consistently across conference abstracts, press releases and publication abstracts. No trial characteristics were associated with reporting primary efficacy end points consistently.

CONCLUSIONS

For clinical trials presented at major medical conferences, primary efficacy endpoint definitions were consistently reported and results were consistently characterised across conference abstracts, registry entries and publication abstracts; consistency rates were lower for sample sizes, follow-up periods, and effect size estimates.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered at the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VGXZY).

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.

The 100 most cited papers on amblyopia: a bibliographic perspective

AIM

To analyze the top 100 most cited papers related to amblyopia.

METHODS

A bibliographic search in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge across 55 years was performed.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine of the 100 papers were published in first-quartile journals. Half (50) of the senior authors were from the USA. Most papers dealt with clinical science (72) and included original research (84). Forty-two of the articles related to all three types of amblyopia (refractive, strabismic and deprivation). Thirty-four related to both strabismic and refractive amblyopia. Around two-thirds of the papers dealt with treatment (34) and pathophysiology (30). Almost a quarter (23%) of the papers were multicenter studies. Nearly half (48) of the papers were published between 2000 and 2010. The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG) published the highest number of studies (11), which dealt more with treatment (p = 0.01) and had higher average number of citations per years (p = 0.05). A larger number of articles on the treatment of amblyopia are newer (p = 0.01). There was no correlation between the time of their publication and the number of citations (p = 0.68, r = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the papers were published between 2000 and 2010 and were spearheaded by PEDIG. Most papers dealt with treatment and pathophysiology. This study provides an important historical perspective, emphasizing the need for additional research to better understand this preventable and curable childhood vision impairment.

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at AAPOS Annual Meetings: From Conference Abstract to Full-Text Article

PURPOSE

To review and analyze abstracts presented at American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) annual meetings, and to identify publication rates and potential predictive factors for better outcomes.

METHODS

All abstracts accepted for presentation at AAPOS annual meetings from 2013 to 2017 were examined. A comprehensive literature search via PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify whether the abstracts had been published as full text. A multivariate analysis was achieved to assess the factors related to successful publication, and a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate the publication time course of abstracts.

RESULTS

Of 819 analyzed abstracts, 437 (53%) were published in peer-reviewed journals with a median impact factor of 2.7. The overall mean time to publication was 3 ± 2.2 years. The multivariate analysis revealed that abstracts were more likely to be published if they were accepted at an AAPOS annual meeting as an oral paper (P < .001), if they were prospective (P > .001) and multicenter (P = .013) studies, and if they had strabismus, retina, and vitreous disorders and diagnosis as main topics (P = .022). The Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed significant differences in the publication time distribution for multicenter versus single-center abstracts and paper versus poster and e-poster (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the abstracts accepted for presentation at the AAPOS annual meetings were published in peer-reviewed journals within 3 years from submission to the meeting. The factors associated with a higher publication rate were the prospective study design, multicentricity, and presentation at the meeting as an oral paper. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 20XX;XX(X):XX-XX.].

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.

The Scientific Value of Abstracts on Prostate Cancer Presented at the European Association of Urology Congresses

Background: Scientific congresses are an important medium for presenting recent clinical findings. Publication of abstracts allows wider dissemination.

Objectives: To determine the publication rates of prostate cancer abstracts presented at the annual congress of the European Association of Urology (EAU).

Design, Setting, and Participants: All abstracts with the term prostate cancer or carcinoma presented at the congress of the European Association of Urology from 2015 to 2018 were analyzed. We captured their publication rate, journal impact factor and time to publication. Moreover, we formulated a scoring system to determine the grade of discrepancy between the conclusions mentioned in the congress abstract and published abstract.

Results: A total of 834 abstracts presented at EAU annual meeting included prostate cancer or carcinoma in their title. We recorded a publication rate of 56.8% with 474 of the 834 abstracts being published with a mean time of 12.5 months.

Conclusion: Approximately, 57% of the prostate cancer abstracts presented at the EAU congress are published in peer reviewed journals. This acceptance rate indicates the high distribution and dissemination of these abstracts.

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society Annual Meeting From 2008 to 2017

BACKGROUND

Conference abstracts serve an important role in the timely dissemination of scientific and clinical advancements, but most fail to be published. The goal of this study was to investigate the publication rate and factors associated with publication of abstracts presented at the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society (NANOS) Annual Meeting over a 10-year period.

METHODS

NANOS Annual Meeting abstracts from 2008 to 2017 were extracted and categorized into Walsh presentations, scientific platforms, or poster presentations. An original automated web scraping program was validated to search PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Google Scholar for publications. Publication date, journal, authors, study type, multicenter involvement, and financial disclosures were retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 195 Walsh presentations, 231 scientific platform presentations, and 1735 scientific posters were included in the study with an overall publication rate of 31.5% (681/2,161). This was stable over the study period. Publication was the highest for scientific platforms (67.1%), followed by Walsh abstracts (36.4%) and poster presentations (27.2%). Multivariable analysis identified 3-4 authors, 5 or more authors, basic science, and sample size of 100 or more significantly correlated with subsequent publication. The top 3 countries for NANOS submissions were the United States, Canada, and South Korea, and the most frequent journal of publication was the Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication rate of NANOS abstracts is comparable to other conferences in ophthalmology and the neurological sciences. Conference attendees should be aware that more than two-thirds of abstracts fail to be published and publication rates vary widely by type of submission.

The Bibliometric Analysis of the Studies Presented at the Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the Period 2009-2018

Objective

The aim of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the abstracts presented at Turkish National Otorhinolaryngology Congresses in the years from 2009 to 2018.

Methods

Abstracts were defined and grouped according to their field of study, design, level of evidence, number of authors, the main institution in which they were held, and whether they were uni- or multi-centric. Frequency and percentage tables were prepared.

Results

In total, 5,463 studies, of which 1,431 (26.2%) were oral presentations and 4,032 (73.8%) were poster presentations were reviewed. The highest number of studies was in the field of otology and in the form of oral presentations (32%), and in the field of head and neck surgery in the form of poster presentations (37%). Fifty-seven percent of all studies were conducted in university hospitals, and 34% in Training and Research Hospitals. Eighty-three percent of oral presentations and 99% of poster presentations were clinical studies. The rate of experimental animal studies was 16% in oral presentations. The most commonly used design of orally presented clinical studies was descriptive (31%), whereas prospective randomized controlled design was the least common (3%). No study with a level 1 of evidence was found. The rate of oral papers presented with evidence levels 2, 3, 4, and 5 among all oral presentations were 22%, 13%, 11%, and 54%, respectively.

Conclusion

The findings indicated that the abstracts were satisfactory in quantity, but overall scientific quality was not sufficient. The data obtained may serve as a basis for future studies, and follow-up studies may guide individuals and institutions that steer the Turkish ENT community.

Frequency of Abstracts Presented at Eye and Vision Conferences Being Developed Into Full-Length Publications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Conference proceedings are platforms for early communication and dissemination of relevant and timely topics of interest. More than half of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences fail to be published in full, resulting in wasted time and resources.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review reports evaluating the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences that are subsequently published in full and investigate factors associated with publication.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and reference lists of included reports were systematically searched from inception to January 11, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Reports that examined the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals 24 or more months later.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, abstracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the proportion of abstracts published in full and assess factors associated with subsequent full publication.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences subsequently published in full.

RESULTS

There were 19 reports covering 12 261 abstracts presented at 11 unique eye and vision conferences. The overall risk of bias of the reports was low. The weighted proportion of abstracts published in full was 38.0% (95% CI, 31.7%-44.3%) and 54.9% (95% CI, 34.6%-73.7%) among reports restricted to abstracts describing randomized clinical trials. Nine reports (47.4%) investigated the proportion of abstracts subsequently published by ophthalmic subspecialties, ranging from 28.3% (oculoplastics: 95% CI, 17.2%-42.9%) to 42.7% (glaucoma: 95% CI, 34.7%-51.0%). Oral presentation (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.76) and basic science (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.47) were significantly associated with higher full publication; factors not significantly associated with full publication included positive results, randomized clinical trial vs other study design, multicenter study, and industry funding.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

More than 60% of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences were not published in full within 2 years of conference presentation. Failure to disseminate research studies in peer-reviewed journals is not desired, especially when involving human participants.

Factors associated with the publication outcomes of paediatric proceedings presented at 2010-2016 the International Associations for Dental Research annual meetings

The International Associations for Dental Research (IADR) annual meeting is one of the most important dental meetings throughout the world, and researches about paediatric dentistry presented in this platform are often used to guide clinical work. To evaluate the publication outcomes of oral and poster paediatric proceedings, which were accepted by the International Associations for Dental Research (IADR), annual meetings from 2010 to 2016 and to analyse the possible factors influencing an abstract's progression to publication. Oral and poster abstracts were retrieved from the official website of IADR (2010-2016). Searching for subsequent publications was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar (up to March 2019). Two authors independently selected studies, collected, and analysed data. A total of 1396 abstracts were identified, including 275 oral presentations and 1121 poster presentations. Finally, 606 were published in peer-reviewed journals, with a publication rate of 43.41%. Abstracts were published earlier if it is from Europe, well funded, presented orally, or with large sample size. The high publication rate of the IADR proceedings supported the impact of IADR annual meetings on paediatric dentistry in the last 10 years.

Publication outcomes of abstracts presented at 2013 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT) conference

Introduction: Scientific conferences are useful in disseminating medical research and advancing the medical and scientific fields. An important measure of the success of such conferences is the proportion of research that is published in peer-reviewed journals. The conversion rates for toxicology abstracts to full-text publications at previous North American toxicology meetings were low. No study has assessed the publication rate from the 2013 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT) conference.Methods: We reviewed 316 abstracts presented at the 2013 NACCT Conference. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline databases using the authors' names and keywords, through September 2019. We then identified and excluded cases and case reports to reanalyze the data.Results: Thirty-three of 316 abstracts (10.4%) subsequently appeared in 17 different peer-reviewed journals, led by Clinical Toxicology (13 out of 33, 3%). Leading countries of origin for abstract submission were the USA (285), Canada (9), and the UK (8). Excluding case reports, 25 out of 207 abstracts (12.0%) achieved publication in peer-reviewed journals.Conclusions: Fewer than one in eight abstracts reached publication within six years of the 2013 NACCT meeting, even after accounting for and excluding case reports. This rate is lower than in other specialty medical societies.

Characteristics and trends in publications of abstracts presented at the Canadian Ophthalmological Society Annual Meetings: 2010-2015

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) Annual Meetings from 2010 to 2015.

DESIGN

A retrospective review and literature search of abstracts presented at the COS Annual Meetings from 2010 to 2015.

METHODS

Abstracts were obtained from the scientific programs for the 2010-2015 COS meetings, excluding 2014 (data unavailable). Title, author number, presentation type, subspecialty, institution, and study design were collected. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched in duplicate using abstract title, key words, and authors. Publication date, journal, impact factor, and citation score were recorded for each publication. Publication rates were determined by year of abstract presentation, presentation type, study type, subspecialty, author number, institution, and time to publication.

RESULTS

876 abstracts were presented, of which 326 (37.3%) were posters and 548 (62.7%) were oral presentations. The publication rate was 42.9% (375 publications) with a 16-month median time to publication. The publication rate did not vary significantly by presentation type or year. Publication rates were highest among vision rehabilitation (75.0%) and glaucoma (52.0%) subspecialties; basic science research (65.0%) and systematic reviews/meta analyses (62.0%) study designs had the highest representation. Most presentations were published in the Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology (117 presentations, 31.2%). The mean impact factor and citation score for published abstracts were 2.39 ± 2.3 and 1.70 ± 1.16, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate of abstracts presented at the COS Annual Meetings has remained stable across this 5-year analysis. Publication rates are comparable to those of other specialty conferences.

The fate of abstracts presented at international ophthalmology meetings: 2- and 5-year publication rates

PURPOSE

To investigate the 2- and 5-year publication rates of abstracts presented at major international ophthalmology meetings.

METHODS

We analyzed a random selection of 20% of free papers and posters presented at the 2010 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the European Association for Vision and Eye Research, the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology, and the 2009 European Society of Ophthalmology meeting. The PubMed (MEDLINE) database was searched to identify matching journal articles. Data collection included: topic, geographic origin, presentation type, publication status, and impact factor. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to assess odds of publication and impact factor.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 1742 research abstracts. The overall 2- and 5-year publication rates were 33.3% (n = 579) and 47.2% (n = 823), respectively. The highest publication rates were found for Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (36.1% and 51.9%, p < 0.0001), paper presentations (44.5% and 60.5%, p < 0.0001), researches from Oceania (35.8% and 57.1%, p < 0.05) and North America (36.2% and 50.5%, p < 0.05), and Basic science studies (44% and 60.3%, p < 0.01). After adjustments, higher odds of publication were shown by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology meetings (p < 0.0001), papers (p < 0.0001), and Basic science (p < 0.05). The median impact factor was 3.20 (interquartile range = 1.90-3.40).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of abstracts presented at the major ophthalmology meetings reach publication within 5 years of their initial presentation. Professionals attending meetings may consider adopting a more critical approach to the preliminary results reported in presented abstracts. Increasing publication rates and reducing potential publication bias is of interest.