Publication outcomes of abstracts from the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting

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.

Charting the course from abstract to published article

OBJECTIVE

Abstracts act as short, efficient sources of new information. This intentional brevity potentially diminishes scientific reliability of described findings. The authors' objective was to 1) determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) annual meeting that subsequently are published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) assess AANS abstract publications for publication bias, and 3) assess AANS abstract publications for differing results.

METHODS

The authors screened all abstracts from the annual 2012 AANS meeting and identified their corresponding full-text publication, if applicable, by searching PubMed/MEDLINE. The abstract and subsequent publication were analyzed for result type (positive or negative) and differences in results.

RESULTS

Overall, 49.3% of abstracts were published as papers. Many (18.1%) of these published papers differed in message from their original abstract. Publication bias exists, with positive abstracts being 40% more likely to be published than negative abstracts. The top journals in which the full-text articles were published were Journal of Neurosurgery (13.1%), Neurosurgery (7.3%), and World Neurosurgery (5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Here, the authors demonstrate that alone, abstracts are not reliable sources of information. Many abstracts ultimately remain unpublished; therefore, they do not attain a level of scientific scrutiny that merits alteration of clinical care. Furthermore, many that are published have differing results or conclusions. In addition, positive publication bias exists, as positive abstracts are more likely to be published than negative abstracts.

Contributions to the American Society of Hematology Meeting From Low- and Middle-Income Countries: An In-Depth Analysis and Call to Action

PURPOSE

Establishing research capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is key for improving the outcomes of patients with hematologic diseases globally. Few studies have analyzed the contributions of LMICs to global hematology. The American Society of Hematology Meeting (ASH) is the largest international academic event where peer-reviewed contributions in our field are presented.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional analysis, all abstracts accepted to ASH 2018 selected for a poster or oral presentation were reviewed. Those that had a contributing author from an LMIC were identified. The proportion of LMIC abstracts across categories was analyzed. Country of origin, high-income country participation, the presence of a conflict of interest (COI), and sponsorship were determined.

RESULTS

From 4,871 abstracts reviewed, 506 had a contributing author from an LMIC (10.4%), with 277 (54.7%) contributions in partnership with a high-income country. LMIC-independent contributions corresponded to 19 of 1,026 oral abstracts (1.9%) and 209 of 3,845 posters (5.4%). Most abstracts from LMICs were clinical (n = 311; 61.5%) and multicentric in nature (n = 353; 69.8%). COI statements with the pharmaceutical industry were common (n = 214; 42.3%). Collaboration between LMICs was infrequent (n = 33; 6.5%). Upper-middle-income countries had 466 participations (81.5%), in comparison with 96 (16.8%) in low-middle-income and 10 (1.7%) in low-income countries.

CONCLUSION

LMICs were responsible for a small fraction of abstracts at ASH18; low-income countries were practically absent. Almost half of accepted works represented a form of international collaboration, with clinical, multicenter studies predominating and COI disclosures a frequent and unexpected feature, reflecting the instrumental nature of LMIC participation and a lack of independent, robust, locally developed hematology research.

The destiny of an abstract: What predicts publication as a full text journal article?

AIM

The progress of a discipline depends on the knowledge widely shared, an aim fulfilled by publications. But which are the factors influencing publication? We examine predictors of a subsequent publication for abstracts submitted to the annual scientific conference of the German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO).

METHODS

For all 288 abstracts presented in 2014 and 2015 we recorded presentation format, number and gender of authors, study design and university affiliation. Subsequent publication as a peer-reviewed full-text article was researched over a period of more than three years.

RESULTS

A total of 88 abstracts (30.6 %) were published in full-text after a mean time span of 1.2±1.6 years after the respective conference. In multivariate logistic regression, secondary studies (OR 9.27 [1.51-57.04]; p=0.016), a higher number of authors (OR 1.21 [1.02-1.43]; p=0.030), a higher percentage of female authors (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.03]; p=0.036) but male gender of the first author (OR 2.10 [1.11-3.98]; p=0.023) resulted in a higher probability of getting published as a journal paper.

CONCLUSION

Our investigation shows that secondary studies, a higher number of authors, a higher percentage of women among the authors and male first authors are predictive factors of publication. After more than three years, only about one third of the abstracts presented at the DGKFO annual scientific conference have been published as a full-text journal article, meaning that a huge part of knowledge remains unshared.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists annual scientific meetings: Any change since 2004?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at annual Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) conferences.

METHODS

The College's Annual Scientific Meetings (ASMs) from 2010 to 2013 were examined, with the goal of comparing these results to the findings of an earlier identical study that examined RANZCR ASMs from 1996 to 1999.

RESULTS

Of the 1152 research abstracts presented, 468 (41%) had been published as full articles. The overall abstract to publication ratio (APR) for radiology was 34% and for radiation oncology was 57%. For oral presentations, these were 44% for radiology and 55% for radiation oncology. Papers were published in a wide variety of journals but 23% of articles appeared in the College's journal, the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology. The mean time between presentation and publication was 16.5 months (median 17 months).

CONCLUSION

Publication rates are comparable with international reports. The APR has increased since the previous study for both disciplines, but more so for Radiation Oncology.