Publication rates of abstracts presented at Biennial Meetings of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine

Publication Rates of Poster and Podium Presentations at the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Annual Meetings 2016 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) annual meeting allows for the dissemination of research regarding hip and knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to provide the poster and podium publication rates from the 2016 to 2019 AAHKS annual meetings and assess the quality of meeting presentations that ultimately were published during this time period.

METHODS

Posters and podium presentations from 2016 to 2019 were located through the AAHKS e-Poster and meeting archives. Presentation titles were queried on Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Presentation title, topic type, number of authors, degrees held by the first author, and award status were collected. For each identified full-text publication, the journal name, study type, dates of online and print publication, and journal impact factor (JIF) were also obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 1,274 abstracts were presented at the 2016 to 2019 AAHKS annual meetings with an overall publication rate of 67.8% (864 of 1,274). The number of abstracts presented increased from 2016 to 2019 (P < 0.001). The median time to publication of the earliest publication medium (online or print) was 6.0 months (95% CI [confidence interval] 5.0 to 6.0). Podium presentations (4.0 months, 95% CI 3.0 to 4.0) were more likely to be published earlier than poster presentations (7.0 months, 95% CI 6.0 to 7.0) (P < 0.001) The median JIF of published abstracts was 3.3 (95% CI 3.3-3.7) with no significant difference in the mean JIF of published posters or podium presentations (3.3 ± 1.0 versus 3.3 ± 1.0, P = 0.554). The likelihood of publication was significantly higher for podium presentations (OR [odds ratio] 3.41, 95% CI 2.29 to 5.07, P < 0.001), award-winning presentations (OR 4.78, 95% CI 1.69 to 13.55, P = 0.003), and with more authors (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.16, P = 0.014).

DISCUSSION

This analysis demonstrates abstracts presented at the AAHKS annual meetings from 2016 to 2019 had an overall publication rate of 67.8%, with podiums (86.4%) three times as likely to be published as poster (63.6%) presentations. If selected to present at the AAHKS annual meeting, individuals can be confident that their work has a high chance of eventual publication.

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.

Analysis of Publication Trends for the 2011-2015 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meeting Abstracts

BACKGROUND

Academic conferences are sources of novel research that can influence clinical decision making. Orthopaedic surgery maintains a relatively high rate of publication compared with other surgical subspecialties, and sports medicine conferences hold an even higher rate within the subspecialty. The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) annual meetings have been shown to have among the highest rates of publication for accepted abstracts.

PURPOSE

To determine differences between 2-year publication rates of poster and podium abstracts accepted into the AOSSM annual meetings and identify factors associated with publication.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

The AOSSM archives were queried for all accepted poster and podium presentations for annual meetings from 2011 through 2015. Google Scholar and MEDLINE databases were used to determine which abstracts transitioned into journal articles. Publication rates were compared based on publication 2 years following presentation. Logistic regression was performed to demonstrate which variables were most correlated with successful publication. Data on publication impact factor and number of citations were collected by use of the InCites database.

RESULTS

Of 628 abstracts accepted during this period, 265 were poster presentations and 363 were podium presentations. Overall, 44.7% of abstracts presented were accepted into peer-reviewed journals within 2 years of presentation. No statistical difference was found between poster and podium presentations for journal publication (P = .328). Poster presentations were published in journals with statistically lower impact factor (P = .005) and had a statistically lower number of citations (P < .001) compared with podium presentations. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that only number of authors was correlated with publication (P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Podium and poster presentations accepted into AOSSM conferences had equal rates of publication within 2 years and should influence decision making equally. The relative impact of podium presentations appeared to be greater, which suggests that the AOSSM selects podium presentations that will have greater clinical impact. Increasing number of coauthors was the only factor found to be correlated with publication.

What is the fate of scientific abstracts presented at the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy meetings?

Publication rates for general sports medicine society meetings have been studied but little is known about the publication rate for subspecialty sports medicine meetings. The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy (ISHA) from 2011 to 2014. A database of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of ISHA was compiled. Abstracts that reached manuscript publication were determined using a PubMed search of the Medline database and Google Scholar. Statistical analyses were primarily descriptive. A total of 220 podium abstracts and 454 posters were presented at ISHA annual meetings from 2011 to 2014. Of the 220 podium presentations, 118 (53.6%) were eventually published with 91.5% of these being published within 3 years. Of the 454 posters, 182 (40.1%) were published with 95.6% being published in 3 years. Podium presentations had a significantly higher publication rate (P < 0.001). Published podium and poster presentations were most frequently published in the Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Research (podium: 24.6%; poster: 28.6%). The overall publication rate of scientific abstracts presented at the Annual ISHA meeting approximates that of general sports medicine society meetings. Podium presentations are significantly more likely to be published than scientific research presented as poster. These findings may highlight the scientific and educational merit of content presented. Continued attention is needed to maintain and improve the quality of abstracts presented at ISHA meetings.

Current Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Annual Meetings: 2005-2010

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2005-2010 Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) Annual Meetings.

METHODS

All abstracts from the 2005 to 2010 OTA meetings were identified through the OTA's official website. Each abstract was searched across PubMed and Google to determine its publication status. The overall publication rate of abstracts was determined, along with the first authors' sex, number of authors, time and journal of publication, and analyzed with statistical testing.

RESULTS

Of the 392 abstracts presented at the 2005-2010 OTA meetings, the overall publication rate was 66.3%, with an overall mean time to publication of 28.3 months. The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma published 38.5% of published OTA abstracts, the most of any journal. The proportions of published OTA abstracts with female first authors exhibit increasing trends within the time period.

CONCLUSION

The quality of research presented at OTA meetings is relatively high compared with other orthopaedic meetings, with 66.3% of OTA abstracts progressing to peer-reviewed publication. The publication rate of 2005-2010 OTA abstracts was greater than that of the 1990-1995 abstracts. The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma remains the most frequent publisher of manuscripts presented as abstracts at OTA meetings. Although most abstracts are eventually published, the information presented at these meetings, like all scholarly work, should be critically evaluated as they have undergone a less robust peer-review process and may be modified in the future in preparation for publication.

An In-Depth Analysis of Publication Characteristics of Podium Presentations at the Arthroscopy Association of North America Annual Meetings, 2011-2014

PURPOSE

To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) from 2011 through 2014 and to compare the level of evidence (LoE) between published and unpublished studies.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar for all abstracts given as podium presentations at the 2011 through 2014 AANA Annual Meetings. A publication rate was calculated from all presented abstracts. Each abstract was reviewed to determine the study's LoE (I-V or nonclinical). Among published studies, the average time from presentation to publication was calculated. The journals in which these studies were published were also noted.

RESULTS

A total of 290 abstracts were given as podium presentations at AANA Annual Meetings from 2011 through 2014. Of the 290 studies presented, 195 (195/290, 67%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. Of the 195 published studies, 184 (184/195, 94%) were published within 3 years of the meeting date. Studies were most frequently published in Arthroscopy (n = 59) and the American Journal of Sports Medicine (n = 48). The average time from presentation to publication was 12.2 months. Overall, there was no significant difference between published and unpublished studies in terms of LoE (P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, studies presented at AANA Annual Meetings have achieved a high publication rate (67%). Based on other studies, this publication rate is comparable to recent American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) Annual Meetings and is higher than that of AANA Annual Meetings from previous years. The level of evidence of presented studies does not necessarily correlate with eventual publication.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The publication rate and level of evidence of podium presentations at AANA demonstrate the scientific impact the annual meeting has for peers pursuing orthopaedic research.

Progress in the Full-Text Publication Rate of Orthopaedic and Sport Physical Therapy Abstracts Presented at the American Physical Therapy Association's Combined Sections Meeting

Study Design Descriptive study. Background Professional meetings, such as the American Physical Therapy Association's (APTA's) Combined Sections Meeting (CSM), provide forums for sharing information. However, it was reported that only one-quarter of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy abstracts presented at the CSM between 2000 and 2004 went on to full-text publication. This low conversion rate raises a number of concerns regarding the full dissemination of work within the profession. Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the full-text publication rate of work presented in abstract form at subsequent CSMs and investigate factors influencing the rate. Methods A systematic search was undertaken to locate full-text publications of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy abstracts presented at CSMs between 2005 and 2011. Eligible publications were published within 5 years following abstract presentation. The influences of year of abstract presentation, APTA section, presentation type, institution of origin, study design, and study significance were assessed. Results Over one-third (38.6%) of presented abstracts progressed to full-text publication. Odds of full-text publication increased if the abstract was presented as a platform presentation, originated from a doctorate-granting institution, reported findings of an experimental study, or reported a statistically significant finding. Conclusion The full-text publication rate for orthopaedic and sports physical therapy abstracts presented at recent CSMs has increased by over 50% compared to that reported for the preceding period. The rate is now in the range of that reported in comparable clinical disciplines, demonstrating important progress in the full dissemination of work within the profession. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 7 Oct 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7581.

Do we publish what we preach? Analysis of Spanish Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Society publication rates

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to analyse the publication rate of studies presented as podium presentations in the Spanish Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (SECHC) congresses.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-two abstracts presented at the SECHC congresses held in 2007, 2009 and 2011 were included for the purpose of the study. The oral communications were categorized by study type, sample included and follow-up. In June 2017, possible publications of these studies were searched in PubMed. Type of study, delay in publication, journal and impact factor obtained were recorded. The concordance between the information presented at the congress and their subsequent full-text publications was analysed.

RESULTS

The publication rate was 17.21% (21 of the 122 abstracts studied) after 6 years, with a mean time spent for publications of 36.71 months, and a mean impact factor of 1.51. There were no differences between results initially presented at the congresses and those subsequently published (P>0.05).

DISCUSSION

The majority of papers presented at SECHC congresses do not end up with a publication. The papers that are published do not usually contain significant differences compared to the content delivered at the congress.

Publication Rates in Podium and Poster Presentations at the 2012-2014 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Annual Meetings

BACKGROUND

Subspecialty conferences are an important forum for disseminating the latest research relevant to clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to identify publication rates in podium and poster abstracts for the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) Annual Meeting and to identify the most common journals of publication and the reasons for nonpublication.

METHODS

Six hundred ten accepted abstracts (182 podium presentations, 428 posters) from the 2012-2014 AAHKS meetings were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. If an abstract could not be found after efforts by multiple searchers, the first author was emailed to determine where the research was published or why it was not published. For articles that were published, the journal, time to publication, and journal impact factor were noted.

RESULTS

The overall rate of publication was 71% (436/610). Podium presentations (164/182, 90%) were published at a higher rate than posters (271/428, 63%). The most common journal of publication was the Journal of Arthroplasty (218/436, 50%), followed by Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (77/436, 18%) and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (40/436, 9%). Average time to publication was 14.5 months (range, -4 to 44 months) from the date of the conference in which it was presented.

CONCLUSION

Presentations at the AAHKS annual meeting have an impressive rate of publication. The research presented at the meeting is impactful and high quality, warranting consideration for future publication.

Do we publish what we preach? Analysis of the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress publication rates

Background

Scientific congresses have become the most expedient method to communicate novel findings on any research topic. However, an important question is whether this information will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Our aim was to determine the publication rate of the abstracts presented at the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress and analyze factors that may influence this rate.

Methods

A total of 398 abstracts reported in the Abstract Book from the 2008 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress were examined and categorized by oral and poster presentations, topic, and the number of authors listed. A search in PubMed and Google Scholar for subsequent peer-reviewed publications was performed in September 2015. The time to publication after the meeting had been held; the type of journal and its impact factor at the time to publication were recorded for those abstracts that reached peer-reviewed journal publication.

Results

The overall publication rate for the 2008 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow oral and poster presentations was 45.20% after 7 years. The mean time to publication was 18.53 months, and the mean impact factor value was 2.32. Oral presentations were significantly better represented in journals than posters (64.40 vs. 35.40%, p < 0.001). Abstracts with a greater number of authors listed had better publication rates (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Less than half of the oral presentations and posters at the 21st European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress were published in peer-reviewed journals. Oral presentations with a higher number of authors had an increased likelihood of being published.

The rate of publication of free papers at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy congresses

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency with which free papers presented at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) congress were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, this study evaluated whether any correlations exist between the level of evidence of the free papers and their frequency of publication or the impact factor of the journals in which they are published.

METHODS

Free papers presented at the 2008 and 2010 ESSKA congresses were included for assessment. Clinical papers (observational studies and trials involving direct interaction between an investigator and human subjects) were graded for level of evidence by two independent reviewers. A comprehensive strategy was used to search the databases PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), and EMBASE for all publications corresponding to the included free papers.

RESULTS

Three hundred-ninety presentations were evaluated, of which 215 (55%) were ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal within five years of the presentation date. The mean time from presentation to publication was 16 months (SD 25 months). There was no significant difference in the distribution of the level of evidence between studies that were ultimately published, versus those that were not published (n.s.). The level of evidence of the published study was not a significant predictor of the impact factor of the journal in which it was published (n.s.). Presentations were most commonly published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (24%) and The American Journal of Sports Medicine (22%).

CONCLUSION

Free papers at the 2008 and 2010 ESSKA congress were published at a frequency that is comparable to that at other orthopaedic meetings. The publication rate was similar across all levels of evidence. Further encouragement of manuscript preparation and submission following these meetings could help to ensure important research findings are disseminated to large audiences.

Publication Rates of Podium Presentation Abstracts at the Arthroscopy Association of North America Annual Meetings 2004-2012

PURPOSE

To determine the publication rates of podium presentation abstracts at the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) annual scientific meetings from 2004 to 2012.

METHODS

A database of podium presentation abstracts at the annual meetings of the AANA was compiled. Abstract presentations that reached manuscript publication were determined by a PubMed search of the MEDLINE database and Google Scholar. The journal and publication date were then recorded for all identified published abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 658 abstracts were selected for podium presentations at AANA annual meetings from 2004-2012 (range, 53-102 per year). Of these 658 abstracts, 443 (67.3%) went on to eventual publication in peer-reviewed journals. The mean time from the meeting to publication was 20.0 months. Most abstracts were published within 3 years of the meeting (n = 380, 85.8%), with a significant number of published abstracts reaching publication before the time of the meeting (n = 41, 9.3%). Published abstracts were most frequently published in Arthroscopy (n = 186, 42.0%), The American Journal of Sports Medicine (20.3%), and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall publication rate of podium presentations at AANA annual meetings (67.3%) was similar to publication rates for other major orthopaedic annual meetings. Most published abstracts (85.8%) were published within 3 years, and the mean time to publication was 20.0 months.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The rates of publication of podium presentations at AANA annual meetings show the impact and importance of these meetings in the advancement of orthopaedic research.

Publications Rates for Podium and Poster Presentations from the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society

BACKGROUND

National orthopaedic meetings are used to disseminate current research through podium and poster abstract presentations. Not all of these abstracts go on to full-text journal publication. The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rates of podium and poster presentations from the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) annual meetings between 2008 and 2012.

METHODS

All accepted podium and poster abstracts from the 2008-2012 AOFAS annual meetings were compiled from the AOFAS office, Physician Resource Center website, and hardcopy meeting programs. PubMed and Google Scholar searches were performed for journal publications using key words in the presentation abstracts and authors' names. Full-text journal publication rates for the presentations were calculated per year, as were the most common journals of publication.

RESULTS

Overall full-text publication rate was 73.7% for podium presentations and 55.8% for posters. Podium presentations were published in a journal significantly more often than posters ( P < .0001; odds ratio 2.17 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.64-2.86]). The mean time to publication was 1.5 and 1.4 years for podium and poster presentations, respectively ( P = .124). The most common journal for podium and poster publications was Foot & Ankle International.

CONCLUSION

Podium abstracts were significantly more likely to be published compared to posters. The AOFAS overall full-text journal publication rate was one of the higher reported rates compared with other national orthopedic society meetings, which have ranged from 34% to 73%.

Does the Level of Evidence of Paper Presentations at the Arthroscopy Association of North America Annual Meetings From 2006-2010 Correlate With the 5-Year Publication Rate or the Impact Factor of the Publishing Journal?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of paper (podium) presentations at the 2006-2010 Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) annual scientific meetings that were ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate whether the level of evidence correlated with the publication rate of these presentations or the impact factor (IF) of the publishing journal.

METHODS

Paper presentations from the 2006-2010 AANA annual meetings were included for evaluation. Clinical studies were graded for quality using the level of evidence by 2 independent reviewers. A comprehensive strategy was used to search the databases PubMed, Medline, and Embase for publications in scientific journals that corresponded to the presentations and were published within 5 years of the presentation date.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-eight presentations were evaluated. Overall, 179 peer-reviewed publications corresponding to particular meeting presentations were identified, for a 5-year publication rate of 55%. There was no correlation between the publication rate and the level of evidence (P = .836), the type of study (P = .628), or the joint of focus (P = .07) of the presentations. The mean IF of journals that published Level I studies (4.8 [standard error, 2.3]) was significantly higher than the mean IF of journals that published Level II, III, or IV studies (2.58 [standard error, 0.10]) (P = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2006 and 2010, presentations of the highest level of evidence at AANA meetings were subsequently published at a similar rate to presentations of lower levels of evidence, albeit in journals with higher IFs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study is an important initial evaluation of the ultimate clinical impact of AANA meeting presentations. The study type, joint of focus, and level of evidence of the presentations all had no correlation with the rate at which these presentations were ultimately published.

Conference Presentation Characteristics of Studies Published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have determined the percentage of studies presented at national orthopaedic surgery meetings that are eventually published in peer-reviewed journals.

PURPOSE

To determine the proportion of articles in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) that are presented at national or international meetings.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

METHODS

The AJSM archive of 2014 online issues was searched. All original research articles were searched for corresponding presentations as listed at the beginning of the manuscript. An email was sent to the corresponding author of all articles, including those with a presentation listed. Corresponding authors were asked if the published study was presented at a national or international meeting and, if so, at which meeting and year the study was presented. If the study was not presented at a national meeting, the corresponding author was asked why this was the case.

RESULTS

A total of 315 articles met the inclusion criteria. Presentation information was obtained for 264 of these articles (84%). Of these 264 studies, 218 (83%) were presented at national or international conferences. A total of 341 presentations were listed, including 144 (42%) at international conferences. The average time from first presentation to publication was 12.9 months. Seventy-two studies (72/218, 33%) were presented at more than 1 meeting. Of those studies presented at more than 1 meeting, the average number of presentations was 2.7 (range, 2-6). The most common conferences at which AJSM-published studies were presented were the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) Annual Meeting (n = 56) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting (n = 43). Seven authors stated that their published studies were not presented because the study was not accepted for presentation at a national meeting.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of studies accepted for publication in AJSM are presented at national and international meetings. AOSSM and AAOS Annual Meetings are the most common conferences at which these studies are presented, although international conferences account for a substantial proportion of AJSM-published study presentations.

Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of peer review comments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the likelihood that comments provided by peer reviewers of one orthopaedic journal would be similar to comments of reviewers from the same journal and a second journal.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The consistency of the peer review process in orthopedic research has not been objectively examined.

METHODS

Nine separate clinical papers related to spinal deformity were submitted for publication in major peer-reviewed journals and initially rejected. The exact same manuscripts were then submitted to different journals. All papers were returned with comments from two to three reviewers from each journal. Reviews were divided into distinct conceptual criticisms that were regarded as separate comments. Comments were compared between reviewers of the same journal and to comments from reviewers of the second journal.

RESULTS

When comparing comments from reviewers of the same journal, an average of 11% of comments were repeated (range 0% [0/12] to 23% [3/13]). On average, 20% of comments from the first journal were repeated by a reviewer at the second journal (range 10% [1/10] to 33% [6/18]). If a comment was made by two or more reviewers from the first journal, it had a higher likelihood (43% [6/14]) of being repeated by a reviewer from the second journal.

CONCLUSION

When an identical manuscript is submitted to a second journal after being rejected, 80% of peer review comments from the first journal are not repeated by reviewers from the second journal. One may question if addressing every peer review comment in a rejected manuscript prior to resubmission is an efficient use of resources. Comments that appear twice or more in the first journal review are more likely to reappear and may warrant special attention from the researcher.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Annual Scientific Meetings: How Many Abstracts Go on to Publication?

PURPOSE

To determine the percentage of abstracts presented at the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) annual scientific meetings that go on to publication.

METHODS

Records of previous CAR meetings from the years 2005-2011 were obtained. An Internet search was performed to determine which abstracts went on to publication. Abstracts were assessed according to exhibit category (Resident Award Papers), educational institution, publishing journal, and time to publication.

RESULTS

Of the 402 abstracts presented, 112 (28%) were published. Overall, an average of 37% of Radiologists-In-Training Presentations, 34% of Scientific Exhibits, and 20% of Educational Exhibits went on to publication. The University of British Columbia and University of Ottawa published the largest number of abstracts (66 and 62, respectively) from the years 2005-2011. The University of Montreal had the largest percentage of abstracts published (42%). The range of publishing journals was wide, but the top publisher was the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (27%). Eighty-three percent of abstracts were published within 3 years of being presented.

CONCLUSION

In total, 28% of all the abstracts presented at the CAR conferences between 2005 and 2011 were published. Further exploration into the reasons and barriers for abstracts not being published may be a next step in future research.

BASK presentations: progress to journal publication

Scientific conferences, such as the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual meeting, provide an important channel for the exchange of information between researchers. However, the ultimate means of disseminating research information is publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal. The goal of this study was to follow up published abstracts in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, British Volume supplement from the annual BASK conference and determine how many presented abstracts progressed to article publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Combined Google Scholar and PubMed searches of 602 BASK abstract titles over a 10-year period were performed, and the resulting articles were reviewed to confirm that they were directly associated with the corresponding abstracts. Two hundred (33.2%) abstracts presented at BASK conferences over a 10-year period were found in online or print format. This amount is comparable with other similar conferences' publication rates. Only one-third of abstracts presented at the BASK conference were converted to journal publication as full articles. This may be due to multiple rejections, lack of time, relocation of the authors, or a reluctance to publish negative findings. Alternatively, changes in an abstract's title for publication prevents online search engines from identifying the final article and may explain some disparity. Furthermore, presented abstracts may not survive the strict peer-review process required for journal publication. Because these findings from BASK mirror other specialty meetings, clinicians should accept the results of orthopedic meeting proceedings with some level of caution.

Publication rates of presentations at the Irish Orthopaedic Association annual meeting

BACKGROUND

Presentation of scientific research at national and international meetings is an important forum for the dissemination of knowledge. Subsequent publication of a full-text paper in a peer-reviewed journal is the expected outcome of such presentations. The publication rate from these meetings is highly variable.

AIMS

To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Irish Orthopaedic Association's Annual Conference and to determine which factors are associated with progression to full-text publication.

METHODS

We reviewed the proceedings from the Irish Orthopaedic Association's National Meeting over a 4 year period. We searched the Pubmed database using author names, institution names, and keywords from each abstract's title, to determine how many presented articles progressed to full-text publication.

RESULTS

Sixty-six of 203 were published, 97 % within 5 years of presentation. Laboratory based studies presenting novel or innovative findings were more likely to be published than clinical studies. Clinical studies were more likely to be published if they were prospective and had a longer period of follow-up. Retrospective audits were less likely to be published, even with a large cohort size. Changes in authorship of presented papers were related to a longer delay in time to full-text publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Thorough planning of research studies is essential to ensure a timely progression to full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Most studies will be published within 5 years of initial presentation.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at five national pharmacy association meetings

BACKGROUND

Abstract presentations at professional meetings provide a medium for disseminating the findings of scholarly activity. Rates of abstract publication from various biomedical disciplines have been evaluated, with pharmacy noted to be lower than other specialties. Previous research on pharmacy abstract publication rates was conducted for a limited number of professional meetings but has not been assessed using Google Scholar.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the full publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2005 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Spring and Annual Meetings, American Pharmacists Association (APhA) Annual Meeting, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings.

METHODS

Publication status was assessed for abstracts presented during the 2005 ACCP Spring and Annual Meetings, APhA Annual Meeting, and ASHP Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings using PubMed and Google Scholar. Data collected included abstract category, study category, practice site, database(s) in which publication appeared, time in months to publication, publication type, and journal of publication.

RESULTS

Evaluation of 2,000 abstracts presented in 2005 revealed an overall full publication rate of 19.8% (n = 384). Nearly all pharmacy abstracts were published as manuscripts (98.4%; n=378) and indexed in PubMed and Google Scholar (91.9%; n = 353), although a significant percentage were indexed in Google Scholar only (7.8%; n = 30). The mean time to full publication was 16.8 months (SD ±11.9 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Results were consistent with previously reported full publication rates of abstracts from pharmacy association meetings, indicating that abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings continue to have a lower full publication rate than other health disciplines.

Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers

Background

The preliminary results of a study are usually presented as an abstract in conference meetings. The reporting quality of those abstracts and the relationship between their study designs and full paper publication rate is unknown. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials are more likely to be published as full papers than observational studies.

Methods

154 oral abstracts presented at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention 2005 Oslo and the corresponding full paper publication were identified and analysed. The main outcome measures were frequency of publication, time to publication, impact factor, CONSORT (for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, STROBE (for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) score, and minor and major inconsistencies between the abstract and the full paper publication.

Results

Overall, 76 of the 154 (49%) presented abstracts were published as full papers in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.946 ± 0.812. No significant difference existed between the impact factor for randomized controlled trials (2.122 ± 1.015) and observational studies (1.913 ± 0.765, p = 0.469). The full papers for the randomized controlled trials were published after an average (SD) of 17 months (± 13 months); for observational studies, the average (SD) was 12 months (± 14 months) (p = 0.323). A trend was observed in this study that a higher percentage of randomized controlled trial abstracts were published as full papers (71% vs. 47%, p = 0.078) than observational trials. The reporting quality of abstracts, published as full papers, significantly increased compared to conference abstracts both in randomized control studies (CONSORT: 5.7 ± 0.7 to 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.018, CI -2.7 to -0.32) and in observational studies (STROBE: 8.2 ± 1.3 to 8.6 ± 1.4; p = 0.007, CI -0.63 to -0.10). All of the published abstracts had at least one minor inconsistency (title, authors, research center, outcome presentation, conclusion), while 65% had at least major inconsistencies (study objective, hypothesis, study design, primary outcome measures, sample size, statistical analysis, results, SD/CI). Comparing the results of conference and full paper; results changed in 90% vs. 68% (randomized, controlled studies versus observational studies); data were added (full paper reported more result data) in 60% vs. 30%, and deleted (full paper reported fewer result data) in 40% vs. 30%.

Conclusions

No significant differences with respect to type of study (randomized controlled versus observational), impact factor, and time to publication existed for the likelihood that a World Congress of Sports Injury conference abstract could be published as a full paper.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Annual Congress of the Spine Society of Europe (years 2000-2003)

INTRODUCTION

The quality of presentations at medical conferences is of major importance. The publication rate (PR) following congress presentation is an indicator of the extent and quality of a scientific society's activity. The purpose of this study was to investigate publication rates in the Spine Society of Europe (SSE), compare them with the results for American spine societies, and determine factors affecting publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 839 abstracts of podium and poster presentations at SSE congresses held in 2000-2003 were investigated. PRs in peer-reviewed journals within a period of 5 years were assessed. Subgroup analyses were performed for different study types. The consistency of abstracts with publications was also analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall PR was 37.8%, with a mean of 17.7 ± 15.7 months between congress and publication and a mean impact factor of 1.8 ± 1.0 at the time of publication. Comparatively high PRs were found for podium presentations versus posters, studies with higher versus lower levels of evidence, experimental versus clinical studies, prospective versus retrospective studies, randomized versus nonrandomized studies, studies reporting significant main results versus those without, and multicenter studies versus single-center studies. Biomechanical studies also achieved high PRs.

CONCLUSION

The PR was similar to that of NASS (40%) and only slightly inferior to that of SRS (47%) and ISSLS (45%). This shows the high quality of presentations at SSE congresses. The fate of unpublished abstracts is worth further consideration. It is questionable whether it is acceptable to cite abstracts that have not passed a journal's peer-review process and to implement their results in clinical practice.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Annual Congress of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The quality of abstracts presented at medical conferences reflects the scientific activity in the organisations involved. The aims of this study were to evaluate the publication rate of studies presented at the annual congress of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery and to investigate predictive factors for publication. The results were to be compared with other international meetings.

METHOD

All 1,100 abstracts presented at the Congress of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery in 2003 were assessed. The publication rate for the corresponding articles in peer-reviewed journals within 5 years was examined using a PubMed search. The consistency of the congress abstracts with the publications was studied. Factors influencing publication rates were investigated, including level of evidence (LoE) and type of study.

RESULTS

The publication rate was 36%, with a mean of 15 months between conference and publication (mean impact factor 1.50). No significant differences were observed between publication rates for oral presentations and posters. Experimental studies and those with LoE I and II had higher publication rates (47.1%; 55.2%; 39.8%) than clinical studies and those with LoE III and IV (30.8%; 29.2%; 28.0%). Abstracts of randomised studies and prospective studies showed publication rates of 43.2 and 35.6% and were published more often than abstracts of non-randomised studies and retrospective studies, with publication rates of 35.3 and 27.1%.

CONCLUSION

The publication rate was in the lower range of rates available for comparable conferences--e.g., the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, with rates between 34 and 55%--but lower than those of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, at 52-67%. However, 64% of the abstracts remained unpublished, calling into question the acceptability of citing conference abstracts in the scientific literature and implementing them in clinical practice.

Publication rates of manuscript presentations at the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons Annual Scientific Conference between 1999 and 2008

Publication is the ultimate desired end point of scientific research. However, oral manuscript presentations of research studies are often referenced in textbooks, journal articles, and industry white papers, and, as a result, influence treatment care plans. No data exist for the actual publication rate of podiatric foot and ankle surgery oral manuscript presentations. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the actual publication rates of oral manuscript presentations at the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) Annual Scientific Conference over 10 years. Print or electronic media for the ACFAS Annual Scientific Conference official program between 1999 and 2008 were obtained. Each year's official program was hand searched for any oral manuscript presentation, and, when identified, the title and authors were individually searched through electronic internet-based search engines to determine whether an oral manuscript presentation had been followed by publication of a full-text article. Additionally, pertinent journals were hand searched for potential articles. A total of 67.5% (139/206) oral manuscript presentations were ultimately published in 1 of 12 medical journals in a mean of 14.5 months. All journals except one (91.7%) represented peer-reviewed journals. The publication rate of oral manuscript presentations at the ACFAS Annual Scientific Conference is similar to or greater than orthopaedic subspecialties, including foot and ankle surgery, publication rates. Based on the above, attendees of the ACFAS Annual Scientific Conference should be aware that the majority of oral manuscript material presented at the ACFAS Annual Scientific Conference can be considered as accurate because they survive the rigors of the peer-review process more than two thirds of the time.

Full-text publication of abstract-presented work in physical therapy: do therapists publish what they preach?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Professional meetings, such as the American Physical Therapy Association's (APTA's) Combined Sections Meeting (CSM), provide forums for sharing information relevant to physical therapy. An indicator of whether therapists fully disseminate their work is the number of full-text peer-reviewed publications that result. The purposes of this study were: (1) to determine the full-text publication rate of work presented in abstract form at CSM and (2) to investigate factors influencing this rate.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken to locate full-text publications of work presented in abstract form within the Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy sections at CSM between 2000 and 2004. Eligible publications were published within 5 years following abstract presentation. The influences of APTA section, year of abstract presentation, institution of origin, study design, sample size, study significance, reporting of a funding source, and presentation type on full-text publication rate were assessed. Characteristics of full-text publications were explored.

RESULTS

Work presented in 1 out of 4 abstracts (25.4%) progressed to full-text publication. Odds of full-text publication increased if the abstract originated from a doctorate-granting or "other" institution, reported findings of an experimental study, reported a statistically significant finding, included a larger sample size, disclosed a funding source, or was presented as a platform presentation. More than one third (37.8%) of full-text publications were published in the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy or Physical Therapy, and 4 out of 10 full-text publications (39.2%) contained at least one major change from information presented in abstract form.

CONCLUSIONS

The full-text publication rate for information presented in abstract form within the Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy sections at CSM is low relative to comparative disciplines. Caution should be exercised when translating information presented at CSM into practice.

Discrepancies and rates of publication in orthopaedic sports medicine abstracts

BACKGROUND

Presentations of clinically relevant data at AOSSM national meetings are presented yearly and may influence clinical decision making.

HYPOTHESIS

The incidence of presentations that do not subsequently get published is high, and the numbers of major and minor inconsistencies, once published, are also high.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A database was created of all abstracts presented at AOSSM meetings from 1999 to 2001 from official program books. To assess whether each abstract had been followed by publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a PubMed search was conducted to include a 5-year follow-up for each conference. Minor inconsistencies included differences in title, authors, presentation of all outcomes, and authors' interpretation of data. Major inconsistencies included discrepancies in study objective and/or hypothesis, study design, primary and secondary outcome measures, sample size, statistical analysis, results, and standard deviations/confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 of the 165 abstracts presented at AOSSM national meetings from 1999 to 2001 were published in a peer-reviewed journal within 5 years, a publication rate of 59.4%. The median time to publication for all articles was 21 (range, 1-60) months. The majority of articles (61) were published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine (62.2%). The median number of major and minor inconsistencies from abstract to publication was 1 (range, 0-5) and 1 (range, 0-4), respectively. Sixty-two of the 98 published abstracts (63%) had at least 1 major inconsistency, while 79 (81%) had at least 1 minor inconsistency. In 5 manuscripts (5%), the authors' interpretation of the data had changed, and in 2 (2%), the change essentially invalidated the abstract.

CONCLUSION

A large number of scientific presentations do not get published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, those published have a significant number of changes that, in a small percentage of cases, alter the validity of the original presentation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Orthopaedic surgeons and other attendees as well as nonattendees who reference conference abstracts need to exercise good judgment when considering the implications of oral presentations of unpublished materials. When reviewing meeting presentation abstracts, readers should remember that the material being presented is often not in its definitive or ultimate form.

An observational study of the proceedings of the All India Ophthalmological Conference, 2000 and subsequent publication in indexed journals

Aims:

To determine the quality of reporting in the proceedings of the All India Ophthalmological Conference (AIOC) 2000, subsequent rate of publication in an indexed journal and differences between the proceedings and the journal version of these papers.

Design:

Observational study.

Materials and Methods:

All papers presented at the AIOC 2000 were retrieved from the proceedings and assessed for completeness of reporting. To determine the subsequent full publication, a Medline search was performed as of January 2007; consistency between the proceedings paper and the final publication was evaluated. Statistical analysis: Chi square and Fisher′s exact tests were used to compare publication rates based on geographical location, subspecialty and study design; Student′s t-test was used to compare differences based on the number of authors and sample size.

Results:

Two hundred papers were retrieved; many failed to include study dates, design or statistical methods employed. Thirty-three (16.5%) papers were subsequently published in indexed journals by January 2007. The published version differed from the proceedings paper in 27 (81.8%) instances, mostly relating to changes in author name, number or sequence.

Conclusions:

The overall quality of reporting of scientific papers in the proceedings of the AIOC 2000 was inadequate and many did not result in publication in an indexed journal. Differences between the published paper in journals and in proceedings were seen in several instances. Ophthalmologists should be cautious about using the information provided in conference proceedings in their ophthalmic practice.

SUS/AAS abstracts: what is the scientific impact?

AIM

To evaluate the scientific impact of presentations at the annual meetings of the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) and the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS).

METHODS

All Abstracts presented at the 2002-2004 annual conferences were examined for publication rate (PR), publication citation (PC) and journal impact factor (IF).

RESULTS

Overall, 1200 abstracts from the SUS (n = 543,45%) and AAS (n = 657,55%) were reviewed. One way ANOVA analysis of SUS results across session types demonstrated significant differences in PR (89% plenary, 81% parallel, 100% basic science, 47% resident conference, poster 76%, p < 0.0001), but no difference in PC (12.96 plenary, 9.66 parallel, 7.77 basic science, 8.23 resident conference, 8.21 poster, p = 0.25561) or IF (4.17 plenary, 3.50 parallel, 2.66 basic science, 3.12 resident conference 3.13 poster, p = 0.3947). AAS results demonstrated significant differences for PR (81% plenary, 62% parallel and 43% poster, p < 0.0001), CR (8.33 plenary, 4.81 parallel, and 4.78 poster, p = 0.006) and IF (3.75 plenary, 2.64 parallel, and 2.73 poster, p = 0.0124). Comparison of abstracts between meetings demonstrated a higher overall PR, CR and IF for SUS publications (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that SUS and AAS presentations constitute high-quality research, Trends towards higher PR, PC and IF for plenary sessions indicate that the review process properly stratifies research. Statistically higher impact measures for SUS presentations are consistent with the more mature research careers of SUS members.

When will I see you again? The fate of research findings from international wound care conferences*

Medical conferences provide a forum for the rapid dissemination of research directly to health professionals and academics. However, the published record of poster and oral presentations from these meetings is usually limited to abstracts. We aimed to assess how many wound studies presented as conference abstracts were eventually published in journals and to identify the factors that predicted publication. The study was a retrospective review. We identified abstracts relating to oral and poster presentation from two large wound conferences. Following data extraction from the abstracts, a systematic search was conducted to examine if the research was subsequently published as a journal article. A time-to-event analysis was conducted to assess predictive associations between features of the research reported in the conference abstracts and time to full publication. In total, 492 abstracts from two European wound care conferences were identified (467 after exclusions). Of the abstracts included, 60% (279) were for posters and 40% (188) were for oral presentations. Over half of the abstracts (53%) reported results from case studies or case series design. In total, only 57 (12%) of the abstracts included resulted in a related publication. Analysis suggested that those studies reporting positive findings were significantly more likely to be published (hazard ratio 1.79, P= 0.001, 95% CIs 1.26-2.55). Few studies presented as conference abstracts at these two wounds conferences were subsequently published. This may be because of the low methodological quality of studies accepted for poster or oral presentation.