Publication rates for the scientific sessions of the OTA. Orthopaedic Trauma Association

Pathways to evidence-based knowledge in orthopaedic surgery: an international survey of AO course participants

The aim of this study was to gain information about how orthopaedic surgeons use evidence-based literature and how this is influenced by their knowledge of evidence-based medicine. We administered a questionnaire to participants at courses of the Association for the Study of Internal Fixation (AO-ASIF) in Davos, Switzerland, in December 2003. Special attention was paid to the surgeons' educational level, affiliations, and the infrastructure and evidence sources they used. In addition, we tested participants on their knowledge and attitude to evidence-based orthopaedic surgery (EBOS). Of 1,274 course participants, 456 completed the questionnaire. Of 446 respondents, 300 had heard of EBOS, but only 45% could define it correctly. Nearly two thirds identified scientific publications as their main source of scientific knowledge. The respondents' attitudes to and awareness of EBOS principles was high, but it did not influence their manner of searching for scientific information or their trust in various sources of recommendations.

Full Publication of Papers Presented at the 1995 through 1999 European Association of Plastic Surgeons Annual Scientific Meetings: A Systemic Bibliometric Analysis

From the multitude of oral presentations at major medical meetings, the most informative and highest-quality studies make it to full publication in peer-reviewed journals. The rate of publication may be regarded as an indicator of the scientific level of the meeting. Study of the publication rates of consecutive annual meetings allows for the evaluation of the consistency of the scientific level of these meetings and for comparison with publication rates of other meetings in the same field of interest. To grade how useful any publication is to other authors, one can furthermore measure how frequently they cite it in their own publications. Finally, the time lag between oral presentation and full publication is of importance to both its authors and the audience at the meeting. The main objectives of this study were to determine the publication rate of papers of various fields of interest as presented at five consecutive annual meetings of the European Association of Plastic Surgeons (EURAPS) and the time lag between these presentations and their publication. The authors compared their overall findings to those reported for other surgical specialties. Moreover, they identified and classified the journals in which the full publications appeared as an indicator of the scientific value of the meeting. They conclude that a greater than average number of papers presented at the 1995 through 1999 annual EURAPS meetings went on to full publication in peer-reviewed journals. Among these journals, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was the best source for information presented at the meetings. Although approximately 90 percent of the publications appeared before 3 years had passed after a meeting, additional publications may be expected to appear even more than 6 years after the meeting. Given the high publication rate and the high average normalized impact factor of the journals in which the presentations appeared, the five studied EURAPS meetings overall had high scientific value.

Subsequent publication of orally presented original studies within 5 years after 1995 RSNA Scientific Assembly

PURPOSE

To determine the rate at which original studies that were presented orally at the 1995 Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Scientific Assembly were published in Medline-indexed journals and to identify factors predictive of publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 1995 RSNA Scientific Program was jointly reviewed by two readers. A total of 1,897 abstracts were included in the study. A Medline search of articles published between 1996 and 2000 was then conducted to identify articles written by the first, second, and/or last authors of all abstracts published in the 1995 RSNA Scientific Program. The year of publication, journal, country origin of the abstract, subspecialty, and nature of the research (ie, human, animal, or technical) were recorded. Publication rates were compared by using multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Six hundred thirty-five abstracts were expanded into manuscripts that were subsequently published in Medline-indexed journals; thus, the publication rate was 33%. A study was published less than 3 years after the 1995 scientific assembly in 595 (94%) cases. Genitourinary radiology and chest radiology studies had the highest publication rates (46% and 48%, respectively; P <.01), whereas physics studies had the lowest (24%, P <.001). Technical studies (24%, P <.001) were less likely than human studies (36%, P <.001) to be published. The publication rate also differed substantially according to the country origin of the abstract. The articles were published in a total of 109 journals and chiefly in Radiology (211 cases, 33% of published studies).

CONCLUSION

One-third of original studies presented orally at the 1995 scientific assembly were subsequently published in Medline-indexed journals. More articles were published in Radiology than in any other identified journal.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at annual scientific meetings: how does the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists compare?

The abstract to publication ratio (APR) is a measure of the quality of scientific meetings. The aim of the present study was to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at annual Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) conferences, and to identify the publishing journals. All free paper research abstracts (oral or poster) presented by RANZCR radiologists, radiation oncologists and trainees at the four consecutive meetings between 1996 and 1999 were identified retrospectively from conference programmes. The PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/) was searched to determine whether or not the abstract had been published as a full paper. Of the 480 free paper research abstracts, 168 (35%) had been published as full articles. The overall abstract to publication ratio for radiology was 29% and for radiation oncology was 41%. Papers were published in a variety of journals but Australasian Radiology accounted for 27%. The mean time between presentation and publication was 16.5 months (median 17 months). These overall abstract to publication ratios are lower than those reported for overseas-based meetings in each respective area. Guidelines to scientific committees could increase the APR by more rigorous selection of abstracts. Future research should look at barriers to the publication of research findings, and identify ways to assist the publication process.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at annual musculoskeletal tumor society meetings

Beware of the unpublished abstract! What is the publication rate of abstracts presented at Musculoskeletal Tumor Society meetings, and how does this compare with other orthopaedic and medical meetings? Three hundred thirty-six podium presentations from six annual meetings were identified and their publication was searched at a minimum of 3 years after the event. An effort was made to determine what percent of these abstracts eventually were published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was determined that 137 abstracts were published for a publication rate of 41%. The average time between presentation at the meeting and publication was 21.8 plus or minus 13.5 months. The published articles appeared in 48 peer-reviewed journals. The rate of publication and time until publication was similar to other orthopaedic meetings and to other medical disciplines. Changes to the cohort, title, or authors occurred in approximately (1/3) of the published articles compared with the abstracts. These results suggest that for various reasons the majority of presented material at Musculoskeletal Tumor Society meetings may not survive peer review and may not be scientifically valid.

More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It has been estimated that about 45% of abstracts that are accepted for presentation at biomedical meetings will subsequently be published in full. The acceptance of abstracts at meetings and their fate after initial rejection are less well understood. We set out to estimate the proportion of abstracts submitted to meetings that are eventually published as full reports, and to explore factors that are associated with meeting acceptance and successful publication.

METHODS

Studies analysing acceptance of abstracts at biomedical meetings or their subsequent full publication were searched in MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and by hand searching of bibliographies and proceedings. We estimated rates of abstract acceptance and of subsequent full publication, and identified abstract and meeting characteristics associated with acceptance and publication, using logistic regression analysis, survival-type analysis, and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Analysed meetings were held between 1957 and 1999. Of 14945 abstracts that were submitted to 43 meetings, 46% were accepted. The rate of full publication was studied with 19123 abstracts that were presented at 234 meetings. Using survival-type analysis, we estimated that 27% were published after two, 41% after four, and 44% after six years. Of 2412 abstracts that were rejected at 24 meetings, 27% were published despite rejection. Factors associated with both abstract acceptance and subsequent publication were basic science and positive study outcome. Large meetings and those held outside the US were more likely to accept abstracts. Abstracts were more likely to be published subsequently if presented either orally, at small meetings, or at a US meeting. Abstract acceptance itself was strongly associated with full publication.

CONCLUSIONS

About one third of abstracts submitted to biomedical meetings were published as full reports. Acceptance at meetings and publication were associated with specific characteristics of abstracts and meetings.

Publication rates for abstracts presented at the British Association of Plastic Surgeons meetings: how do we compare with other specialties?

We present a retrospective study of the publication rates of articles presented to five meetings of the British Association of Plastic Surgeons between 1995 and 1999. The PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/) was searched using the presenter's name and key words from the abstract. Publication rates varied from 23% for the Winter Meeting of 1999 to 54% for the Winter Meeting of 1997. The mean time lag from presentation to publication varied between 13 and 25 months (range: 1-46 months). These results are comparable to those found in some other medical specialties.

Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings

BACKGROUND

Oral presentations at national and international meetings offer an excellent forum for the dissemination of current research findings. However, publication rates of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts at international meetings have ranged from 11% to 78%, which suggests that at least 32% of the abstracts presented are never published as complete articles in peer-reviewed journals. In an effort to identify the reasons that surgeons had not had a paper published following presentation of their work at an international orthopaedic meeting, we conducted a survey of a cross section of authors of orthopaedic papers presented at a national meeting.

METHODS

We retrieved all abstracts from the 1996 scientific program of the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. A computerized Medline and PubMed search established whether the abstract had been subsequently published as a full-text article. The authors of the abstracts that had not been subsequently published were surveyed to identify the reasons for the failure to publish.

RESULTS

A total of 465 abstracts were presented at the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 1996. We surveyed the authors of 306 abstracts for which we were unable to locate a subsequent full-text publication on Medline. One hundred and ninety-nine investigators (65%) responded to the questionnaire. At the time of the survey, seventy-two manuscripts had been published, thirty-two had been submitted and rejected, fourteen were under consideration by journals, seven had been accepted for publication or were in press, and three were not recalled by the investigator. In addition, seventy-one abstracts (35.7%) of the 199 had not been submitted for publication. The authors of those abstracts were asked to indicate one or more reasons why they had not submitted a manuscript for publication. Thirty-three investigators (46.5%) indicated that they lacked sufficient time for research activities, twenty-two (31.0%) reported that the study presented at the meeting in 1996 was still in progress, fourteen (19.7%) believed that the responsibility for writing the manuscript belonged to someone else, and twelve (16.9%) reported that difficulties with co-authors who would not participate had impeded the completion of the manuscript. Nine investigators (12.7%) responded that the pursuit of publication was a low priority.

CONCLUSIONS

In a survey of investigators who had not had a full-text article published after presenting the abstract at a national meeting, we found that the failure to publish was due to one of three main reasons: (1) they did not have enough time to prepare a manuscript for publication (the reason most frequently given); (2) almost one-third of the studies that had not been submitted for publication were ongoing; and (3) relationships with co-authors sometimes presented a barrier to final publication. Thorough preparation before the study and the establishment of stricter guidelines to limit the presentation of preliminary data at national and international meetings may improve publication rates.

An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications

BACKGROUND

Research abstracts are frequently referenced in orthopaedic textbooks and influence orthopaedic care. However, little is known about the quality of information provided in the abstracts, the frequency of publication of complete papers after presentation of abstracts, or any discrepancies between abstracts and published papers. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of information provided in orthopaedic abstracts, rates of publication of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts, predictors of publication of full-text articles, and consistency between abstracts and full-text articles.

METHODS

We retrieved all abstracts from the 1996 scientific program of the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. For each abstract, we recorded the completeness of reporting and key features of the study design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. A computerized Medline and PubMed search established whether the abstract had been followed by publication of a full-text article. Finally, we evaluated the consistency of reporting between abstracts and final publications.

RESULTS

The program included 465 abstracts, 66% of which were on prognostic studies. All abstracts described the study design, and 70.7% of the designs were observational. Key methodological issues were reported in less than half of the abstracts, and information on data analysis was reported in <15%. One hundred and fifty-nine (34%) of the 465 abstracts were followed by publication of a full-text article. The mean time to publication (and standard deviation) was 17.6 +/- 12 months (range, one to fifty-six months). Inconsistencies between the abstract and the full-text article included the primary outcome measure, which differed 14% of the time, and the results, which differed 19% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-thirds of the orthopaedic abstracts in this sample were not followed by publication of a full-text paper. The overall quality of reporting in abstracts proved inadequate, and inconsistencies between the final published paper and the original abstract occurred frequently. The routine use of abstracts as a guide to orthopaedic practice needs to be reconsidered.

Abstract to publication ratio for papers presented at scientific meetings: how does emergency medicine compare?

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the present study were to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented by Australasian emergency physicians at major emergency medicine meetings and to identify the site of publication of papers.

METHOD

All free paper abstracts presented (oral and poster) by Australasian emergency physicians and trainees at five Australasian College for Emergency Medicine/Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine and International Conference on Emergency Medicine meetings between 1995 and 1998 were identified retrospectively from conference programmes. In order to determine whether or not the abstract had been published, the PubMed database (http://www4.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/) was searched using the presenter's name and key words from the abstract. In addition, a hand search of the non-abstracted journal Emergency Medicine was conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 207 free paper abstracts identified, 73 (35%) had been published as full articles. Papers were published in a variety of journals; however, Emergency Medicine accounted for almost half the published papers. The mean time between presentation and publication was 12.6 months (median 11 months).

CONCLUSION

The abstract to publication rate for papers presented by Australasian emergency physicians and trainees at Australasian College for Emergency Medicine/Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine and International Conference on Emergency Medicine meetings is 35%, which is lower than that reported by some other established specialities, but comparable to rates reported for US-based national and international emergency medicine meetings. Future research should look at barriers to the publication of findings and ways to assist the publication process.

Publication rates following pancreas meetings

Publication rates and determinants of publication were studied based on abstracts presented at pancreatic meetings. All abstracts presented at the 1994 and 1995 annual meetings of the European Pancreatic Club (EPC) and the American Pancreatic Association (APA) were followed up by searching MEDLINE. Publication rates were compared using log-rank tests and multiple logistic regression. The prestige of the publishing journals was compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests on scientific impact factors (SIF). Overall, 340 abstracts were presented at the EPC, and 254 were presented at the APA. Of these, 203 (59.7%, EPC) and 138 (54.3%, APA) were later published in peer-reviewed journals. Publication rates did not differ by study type or country region of origin. In addition, median SIFs were similar by conference (APA vs. EPC) and research type (basic science vs. clinical studies) (overall, 1.7). However, North American and North/West European articles were published in higher impact journals as compared with those from other countries. Publication rates and median journal SIFs in pancreas research are similar to those reported from other medical specialty meetings. There is no difference by conference, type of research, or origin (North American vs. European).

Publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society meetings

The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate of scientific papers in peer review journals presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society (ORS) meetings from 1978 to 1995 inclusive. The abstracts of the presentations at ORS meetings are published in Clinical Otolaryngology. A MEDLINE search was performed on abstracts presented at ORS meetings from 1978 to 1995 using both authors and key words within the text of the abstract. The publication rate, journal of publication, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors and change in conclusions of abstracts were tabulated. The publication rate for papers presented at ORS meetings from 1978 to 1995 was 69.09%. The average time to publication was 22.5 months. Papers derived from the ORS abstracts were most commonly published in Clinical Otolaryngology (34%) and Journal of Laryngology and Otology (18.64%). The results indicate that nearly 69% of presented material at the biannual ORS meetings eventually get published in peer reviewed journals. This compares favourably with publication rate of other specialities.

Evidence-based librarianship: searching for the needed EBL evidence

This paper discusses the challenges of finding evidence needed to implement Evidence-Based Librarianship (EBL). Focusing first on database coverage for three health sciences librarianship journals, the article examines the information contents of different databases. Strategies are needed to search for relevant evidence in the library literature via these databases, and the problems associated with searching the grey literature of librarianship. Database coverage, plausible search strategies, and the grey literature of library science all pose challenges to finding the needed research evidence for practicing EBL. Health sciences librarians need to ensure that systems are designed that can track and provide access to needed research evidence to support Evidence-Based Librarianship (EBL).