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

Bibliometric analysis and conversion rate of abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology into publication of full articles

INTRODUCTION

the presentation of research at a congress is an interesting means for scientific dissemination, but only with publication in an indexed journal does the data become accessible and disseminated. The conversion rate in published articles of abstracts presented at congresses is an indicator to assess the scientific quality of those events. The aim of this study is to evaluate bibliometric characteristics of abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology and to determine the factors that affect publication rates.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of all abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congresses of Coloproctology from 2015 to 2019. Multiple databases were analyzed to estimate the conversion rate of the presented papers, as well as variables associated with the conversion of abstracts into full manuscripts through bivariate analysis and multivariate variables of these predictors.

RESULTS

1756 abstracts were analyzed. Most studies are retrospective, series or case reports, and even personal experience. The conversion rate was 6.9%. The presence of statistical analysis was twice as high for published abstracts as for unpublished ones.

CONCLUSION

the data presented demonstrate a low scientific productivity of the specialty, since the research carried out is, for the most part, not published as complete manuscripts. The predictors of publication of abstracts were: multicenter studies, studies with statistical analysis, study designs with a higher level of evidence and studies awarded by the congress.

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.

Conference abstracts-what gets published, when, and from where?

BACKGROUND

Scientific meetings provide a platform for disseminating new research. Abstracts presented at these meetings are frequently published as full-length papers in peer-reviewed journals. The primary aims of this study were to determine the publication rate and time to publication of abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) and World Federation of Orthodontists (WFO) congresses in 2015. The secondary aim was to identify factors predicting the publication of abstracts.

METHODS

The congress abstracts were identified from the congress report or organizers. Systematic searches of the PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed to identify papers based on the abstracts identified. Abstract titles, first and last authors' last name, and keywords were used to identify whether an abstract resulted in a publication. Abstracts published as full-length articles were then analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 208 abstracts were identified, of which 46.6% were published as full-length articles. The median time to publication was 17 months after the EOS congress, and 8.5 months after the WFO congress. Abstracts presented orally were more likely to be published than those presented as posters. Abstracts from Europe were more likely to result in publication. The subject and setting of the study were poor predictors of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the abstracts presented at the EOS and WFO congresses in 2015 led to full publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The mode of presentation and the region of origin of the research were good predictors of publication.

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.

Do bibliometric findings differ between Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science? Bibliometry of publications after oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses

INTRODUCTION

Bibliometrics consists in quantitative and qualitative analysis of an individual's or group's communication (volume, visibility), and impacts research funding. There are a number of bibliometric data sources, functioning in different ways and liable to give rise to differing statistics. This point has not been investigated in relation to publication following presentation to a French congress. We therefore conducted a study comparing the main bibliometric instruments, aiming to assess: (1) publication rates following oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses according to the database used, and (2) citation rates for these publications according to database.

HYPOTHESIS

Publication and citation rates differ according to database. Material and method All 199 Abstracts of oral presentations to the 2013 and 2014 SFA Congresses were included. Based on author names and key-words, manual search was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases. Publication characteristics (citation rate) were studied using the 3 databases and the French SIGAPS (Système d'Interrogation, de Gestion et d'Analyse des Publications Scientifiques: Scientific Publication Search, Management and Analysis System) website.

RESULTS

Publication rates according to Medline and Google Scholar were the same (48.2%: 96 articles for 199 presentations), but significantly lower on Web of Science (44.7%: 89/199; p=0.002). Citation rates differed significantly (p<0.001) between sources, with Google Scholar listing a mean 1.5-3.4-fold more citations per article than the other 2 databases. Citation rates between the 3 databases correlated strongly (r=0.93).

DISCUSSION

The example presented in this study illustrates the differences in bibliometrics found between different databases. There was a 4% difference (7/199 articles) in publication rates following oral presentation to an SFA Congress, and even greater differences in citation rates per article, with 1.5-3.4-fold more citations according to Google Scholar. Bibliometric studies need to acknowledge the database(s) being used, which should be as many as possible to enhance exhaustiveness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; descriptive epidemiologic study.

The publication rate of oral presentations presented in national congresses of Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery

Background

This study aims to investigate the literature contribution of oral presentations presented in the largest national congresses of the Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery.

Methods

A total of 675 orally presented abstracts during biannually organized 12^th, 13^th, and 14^th congresses were reviewed using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases in May 2018. Abstracts were searched for institutions where they were submitted, publication status in scientific journals, type of peer-reviewed journal, and publication year.

Results

Of a total of 675 oral presentations, 69.1% were clinical studies, 18.8% were case reports, and 12.1% were experimental researches. Of all accepted abstracts, 47.3% were from university hospitals, 36.1% were from training and research hospitals, and 16.6% were from other multi-center institutions. A total of 279 (41.3%) abstracts were published in a scientific journal. There was a significant difference among the institutions in terms of the rate of publication (p=0.04), and the university hospitals had the highest rate. The mean time from presentation to publication in a scientific journal was 16.7±9.1 (range, 4 to 60) months.

Conclusion

The rate of published abstracts from the last three congresses of the Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery is higher compared to the literature results reporting national congresses of other specialties, but is lower than the international congresses. We believe that this ratio should be increased to reach the same level as international reports and the methods to encourage researchers to publish should be developed.

Full-text publication rate of studies reported as 2013 SoFCOT meeting abstracts

BACKGROUND

Publication of scientific work, although mandatory to ensure dissemination of novel research findings and obtain further funding, can require considerably more time and effort compared to conference presentations. Several national or scientific societies have determined the publication rate of studies reported at their meetings. The French Society for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société française de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, SoFCOT) has not yet measured this parameter. The objective of this study was to (i) evaluate the full-text publication rate of studies accepted in abstract form for podium presentations or posters at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting and (ii) identify characteristics of abstracts associated with subsequent full-text publication.

HYPOTHESIS

The full-text publication rate of abstracts accepted for the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was equal to or greater than the mean reported by national societies, i.e., 44.5%.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Publication rates of the 503 studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting were studied. The time horizon was thus at least 5years. The topic was orthopaedic surgery for 315 (62.6%) abstracts, trauma surgery for 153 (30.4%) abstracts, and fractures in elderly patients - the cross-field theme for that year - for 35 (7.0%) abstracts. Reporting was as a podium presentation for 275 (54.7%) abstracts, an e-poster for 205 (40.8%) abstracts, an instructional course lecture for 20 (4.0%) abstracts, a symposium for 2 (0.4%) abstracts, and a round table for 1 (0.2%) abstract.

RESULTS

The full-text publication rate was 35.6% overall and 47.1% (139 publications) for podium presentations. Mean time from podium or poster presentation at the SoFCOT meeting to full-text publication was 1.2±1.5years (range: -2.5 to 6.1years). The full-text publications had 0.8±2.3 (range: -6 to 11) more authors compared to the abstract. They appeared in 54 journals with a mean impact factor of 1.9±1.3 (range: 0.25 to 13.77; median: 1.41; interquartile range: 1.26 to 2.47). Subgroup comparisons showed that full-text publication was more common for prospective than retrospective studies (50.0% versus 30.5%, p<0.0001) and for studies showing a significant difference (48.6% versus 33.0%, p<0.0001). Systematic reviews were more often published in full than were anecdotal case-reports. The full-text publication rate was also higher for studies reported as podium presentations than as e-posters (47.1% versus 17.6%, p<0.0001). Finally, studies of orthopaedic surgery were more often published in full than were studies of trauma surgery (39.7% versus 28.2%, p=0.033).

DISCUSSION

The 5-year full-text publication rate of studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was consistent with previously reported data. The impact factors of the journals in which the studies were published are evidence of the high quality of the information shared at SoFCOT meetings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic retrospective analysis.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Congress of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT)

BACKGROUND

The publication rate of presented abstracts is an important parameter to assess the scientific quality of medical congresses. It has been investigated for many congresses in orthopaedics and traumatology, but until now, it has not been studied for the congress of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT). The aims of this study were to determine: (1) the publication rate of the EFORT congress, (2) factors that favour publication of abstracts presented at the EFORT congress, (3) the consistency between the congress abstract and publication in relation to authorship.

HYPOTHESIS

There are factors that favour publication of abstracts presented at the EFORT congress and there is a high consistency between the congress abstract and publication in relation to authorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 1624 abstracts presented at the EFORT congress in 2011 were included in this study, to allow a 5-year period for publication after the congress. The characteristics of the abstracts presented were studied and the publication rate in peer-reviewed journals was determined using a Medline search.

RESULTS

The publication rate for studies presented at the 2011 EFORT congress was 42% (677/1624 abstracts), with a mean of 16 months (-56 to 60 months) between congress and publication. The mean impact factor of the publications was 1.8 (0-7.6). A significantly higher publication rate was found for: oral presentations (52%; 322/617) versus posters (35%; 355/1007) (p<0.01), experimental studies (53%; 110/208) versus clinical studies (40%; 507/1254) (p<0.01), and studies with higher levels of evidence of I or II (59%; 144/244) versus studies with lower levels of evidence of III or IV (36%; 362/1005) (p<0.01). A new author was added in 59% (403/677) of the publications.

DISCUSSION

Factors that favour publication of abstracts presented at the EFORT congress are oral presentation, experimental study, and a study with a higher level of evidence of I or II. It is common that a new author is added in the publication. Nevertheless, a high percentage of congress abstracts (58%; 947/1624) remains unpublished.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Publication rate of abstracts orally presented at the Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation National Congresses

Objective

The most widely accepted parameter in evaluating the quality of research presented at scientific congresses is the success of publishing that research in a peer-reviewed journal. There are limited data in the literature about the publishing rates of abstracts orally presented at national congresses of the Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation (TARD) in scientific journals. The aim of the present study was to investigate the literary contribution of oral presentations at the TARD Congresses (TARK) and to present proposals for future congresses with detailed evaluation of the literature.

Methods

Overall, 319 orally presented abstracts at the TARK between October 2011 and October 2014 have been reviewed in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Abstracts were evaluated with respect to the institution of the principal author, type of research, publication status in scientific journal, type of publication, year of publication, rate of citation, order of authors and changes in title.

Results

The distributions of investigated papers were as follows: 73.1% clinical research, 21.9% experimental research, 2.5% case presentations and 2.5% survey studies. Moreover, 57.7% of the abstracts had authors from universities, 16% from research-training hospitals and 26.3% from mixed institutions. Further, 42.3% of the abstracts were published as articles in a scientific journal, 65.9% of the manuscripts were published in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) indexed, 8.1% in non-SCIE indexed international journals and 25.9% in national journals. There was no statistically significant difference between institution from which publications were sent and the index status of the journal (p=0.068). The average publication time of the abstracts was 15.01±12.26 months.

Conclusion

The publication rate of abstracts orally presented at the TARK between October 2011 and October 2014 is 42.3%, which is in accordance with other international studies. This indicates that the reports in the congresses were assessed by the jury according to international selection criteria and meticulously scored. The majority of the abstracts were published in journals that are listed in SCIE, indicating a quantitative data regarding the scientific quality of research in anaesthesiology.

Publication rate of podium presentations from the orthopaedic research society annual meeting

Annual scientific meetings serve as a forum for dissemination of new research findings. Presentations should be of high scientific quality as they have the potential to impact future research projects and current clinical practice. The publication rate of podium presentations at an annual meeting can be used to assess the quality of the research presented. The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rate of podium presentations at the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) annual meeting. All podium presentations from the 2012 to 2014 annual ORS meetings were identified. Abstracts were categorized into an orthopaedic topic. A PubMed search was performed to determine if an abstract reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The publication rate was determined for each year. Of the 1063 podium presentations identified, 640 (60.2%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. No significant differences were observed in the publication rate between the orthopaedic topics (p = 0.3414). The majority (75.9%) of published abstracts reached publication within 2 years of presentation and the average time to publication was 17.0 months. Abstracts were published in 151 different journals with an average impact factor of 4.46. Time to publication varied significantly by journal (p = 0.025). Journal of Orthopaedic Research, Journal of Biomechanics, PLoS ONE, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, and Bone were the most common publication journals. This study provides insight into the quality of podium presentations at the ORS annual meeting. The ORS annual meeting compares favorably to other orthopaedic surgery meetings. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:288-292, 2019.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Barriers to peer-reviewed journal article publication of abstracts presented at the 2006-2008 Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference Meetings

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the self-reported barriers to publication for authors of abstracts presented at the most recent chiropractic scientific meetings for which publication rates are known, that is the 2006 to 2008 Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference (ACC/RAC) meetings.

METHODS

A 4-question electronic survey was sent via email to 1 of the listed authors for each abstract not published as a full paper within 4 years of the 2006 to 2008 ACC/RAC meetings. Each author was asked to complete the survey for only 1 abstract. Taking into account authors who appeared on more than 1 abstract, a link to the electronic survey was emailed to 111 potential participants.

RESULTS

Of 111 participants, 67 completed a survey for a return rate of 60%. Over 80% (55/67) of the respondents were chiropractors who were faculty members at educational institutions. Of the subjects, 30% (20/67) indicated that the meeting abstract had either been published after 2012 or still was in the publishing process. For those who had not submitted a manuscript for publication, the most frequently cited barriers to publishing were pursuit of publishing as a low priority followed by a lack of time to prepare a manuscript.

CONCLUSION

The main barriers to publishing in this sample were that publishing had a low priority compared to other possible uses of the abstract author's time and a perceived lack of time to pursue the publication process.

Analysis of subsequent publication and impact of abstracts presented at the Sir Peter Freyer Surgical Symposium: Focus on the Plenary Session

BACKGROUND

The quality of abstracts presented at a conference reflects the academic activity and research productivity of the surgical/scientific association concerned. The abstract to publication rate (44.5 % internationally), is an important indicator of the quality of presented research.

AIM

To evaluate the publication rate and impact of abstracts presented at the plenary session of the Sir Peter Freyer Surgical Symposium over a 25-year period (1989-2014), and identify factors influencing publication.

METHODS

Plenary abstracts were identified from abstract books of the Symposium from 1989-2014. The authors, institution, subspecialty and research subject were recorded. A Medline search with name of the first and last author, key words and content of all abstracts was conducted to identify related publications. The impact factor (IF) of the journal and the time to publication was recorded.

RESULTS

298 presented abstracts resulted in 168 publications (publication rate: 56 %). Basic Science research accounted for 80 % (n = 237) of the total number of presentations with the remaining 20 % (n = 61) being categorised as clinical research. Overall, cancer research accounted for 48 % of presented work. The average time to publication was 2 ± 7 years, while 11 % of all published studies achieved publication in the year of the symposium. The median impact factor for published research was 3.558 (IF range 0-39).

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that the quality of papers presented at the Sir Peter Freyer Surgical Symposium compares favourably with international equivalents, making this meeting an important forum for Irish Academic Surgery.

Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the 2006 Meeting of the American Academy of Optometry

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were to investigate the publication rates of presentations at the 2006 meeting of the American Academy of Optometry (AAO), differences in the publication rates of platform versus poster presentations, consistency of the meeting abstract compared with the full-length journal article, whether abstracts were clinical or basic science, and when and in which journals articles appeared.

METHODS

Abstracts were obtained directly from the AAO. Literature searches using PubMed and VisionCite were performed to locate peer-reviewed journal articles based on those abstracts. Whether the article was based on a poster or platform presentation, congruence of the information in the abstract and the article (i.e., authorship, title, methods, and conclusions), type of study (clinical or basic science), subject category, and journal and year in which the article appeared were recorded.

RESULTS

We identified 518 proceeding abstracts, 108 of which ultimately were published between 2006 and 2013, giving an overall publication rate of 21%. Thirty-three percent of platform presentations eventually were published versus 18% of posters. Congruency showed that 17% of articles had the same title as the meeting abstract, 36% had the same authorship, and 53% had the same methods. Eighty-one percent of articles were clinical in nature, whereas 19% of them were basic science. Thirty-seven percent of articles dealt with the subjects of cornea and contact lenses. Articles were found in 39 different journals, with 34% of them appearing in Optometry and Vision Science. Eighty-eight percent of articles were published within 4 years after the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate from the 2006 AAO meeting was 21%. Platform presentations were more likely to be published than posters. Congruency rates of abstracts to articles are lower than national meetings in other fields. The vast majority of articles were published within 4 years after the meeting.

Publication rate of studies presented at veterinary anaesthesia specialty meetings during the years 2003-2008

OBJECTIVE

To assess publication rates, factors predicting publication, and discrepancies between conference abstracts and subsequent full-text publications of abstracts from the veterinary meetings of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists and the Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists from 2003 to 2008.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

A total of 607 abstracts were identified and a database search (Scopus, PubMed, CAB) was conducted to identify matching publications. Authors of nonmatching abstracts were contacted to participate in a confidential online survey. Risk ratios were used to assess factors predicting publication and these were tested for significance (p < 0.05) using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The overall publication rate was 63.3% and the mean (± SD) time to publication was 25 ± 19 months. Factors significantly associated with subsequent full publication (i.e. publication of a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal) were continent of origin (North America), study design (experimental studies), specialty (analgesia) and the presence of a source of funding. The principal reasons why studies remained unpublished were lack of time and responsibility lying with co-authors. Minor changes compared with the original abstract were found in 71.6% of all publications. Major changes were noted in 34.6% and the outcome of the study changed in 7.6%.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These data suggest that some of the abstracts reported preliminary findings. Therefore, caution is warranted when quoting abstracts as references in scientific publications. To date, major veterinary journals have not issued recommendations in their author guidelines addressing the use of abstracts as a reference. The authors propose the inclusion of such a statement in author guidelines.

"Publish or perish"-presentations at annual national orthopaedic meetings and their correlation with subsequent publication

Background

Presentation of research at annual national orthopaedic conferences not only serves as a forum for the dissemination of knowledge but is also often a requirement of orthopaedic training programmes. The expected outcome is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. However, publication rates vary for a variety of reasons. The objective of this study was to determine publication rates of presentations from our local Singapore Orthopaedic Association (SOA) annual scientific meeting (ASM) and some of the potential associated factors. We also compared our findings to equivalent meetings worldwide to assess value of scientific content of various orthopaedic conferences.

Methods

All presentations of six SOA ASMs were entered into a database. Using presentation titles, author names and keywords in PubMed and Google Scholar, we determined how many presentations progressed to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Various comparisons were made to determine factors that could influence publication rates. A comparison with national orthopaedic meetings of America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Turkey and Brazil was also conducted.

Results

Excluding the ASMs with less than 4 years of follow-up, the publication rate was 35.8%. Both podium and international presenters were found to have significantly higher publication rates than poster and local presenters, respectively, while basic science and clinical research were found to have equivalent rates. Publication rates from other countries’ national conferences ranged between 26.6% and 58.1%.

Conclusions

We suggest that the quality of a presentation is related to its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our findings support the general consensus that the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is the gold standard for the dissemination of orthopaedic knowledge updates and advancements in our specialty. Each national orthopaedic association could determine the ratio of “presentations at ASM” to “publication within five years of presentation” and use this as a measure of their annual conference’s impact on the addition and advancement to the orthopaedic literature. This tool may in turn assist clinicians in determining which meetings to attend.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society Annual Meetings, 2006 to 2008

BACKGROUND

The quality of the abstracts presented at a conference reflects the scientific work and level of activity of the scientific association concerned. The aim of the present study was to determine the rate of publications of podium presentations and posters at the conferences of the European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society (EPOS) from 2006 to 2008 and to identify factors that favor publication in peer-reviewed journals. The results are compared with those of other international societies.

METHODS

All 646 abstracts (including podiums, posters, and e-posters) presented at the EPOS conferences were investigated using the PubMed database to identify any corresponding published articles in the journals listed in the database. A period of 5 years before and after the relevant conference was used for the PubMed search. Factors influencing publication and the quality of the study, such as the type of presentation and the level of evidence, were also investigated.

RESULTS

A publication rate of 36.7% was observed, corresponding to 237 publications of 646 abstracts. The period to publication showed a mean of 13.88 ± 1.34 months. It was found that abstracts of podium presentations were published significantly more often than poster abstracts (P<0.001). Experimental studies, with a publication rate of 50.9%, showed better results than clinical studies (36.0%). Overall, the articles were published in 61 different journals, with the largest number (n=50) appearing in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. In addition, the present study shows that abstracts with a higher level of evidence were associated with a higher publication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

At 36.7%, the rate of publication of EPOS abstracts is within the range reached by other specialist orthopaedics societies, such as the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (36%) and the British Orthopaedic Association (36%). However, it is lower than the publication rate of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA), at 50%. The high percentage of unpublished conference abstracts (63%), which did not go through a peer-reviewed process, casts doubts upon the practice of utilizing the citation of abstracts based purely on conference abstracts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Statistical study.

Full-text publication of abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses

INTRODUCTION

Empirical evidence has indicated that only a subsample of studies conducted reach full-text publication and this phenomenon has become known as publication bias. A form of publication bias is the selectively delayed full publication of conference abstracts. The objective of this article was to examine the publication status of oral abstracts and poster-presentation abstracts, included in the scientific program of the 82nd and 83rd European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, held in 2006 and 2007, and to identify factors associated with full-length publication.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed in April 2013 using author names and keywords from the abstract title to locate abstract and full-article publications. Information regarding mode of presentation, type of affiliation, geographical origin, statistical results, and publication details were collected and analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Approximately 51 per cent of the EOS 2006 and 55 per cent of the EOS 2007 abstracts appeared in print more than 5 years post congress. A mean period of 1.32 years elapsed between conference and publication date. Mode of presentation (oral or poster), use of statistical analysis, and research subject area were significant predictors for publication success.

LIMITATIONS

Inherent discrepancies of abstract reporting, mainly related to presentation of preliminary results and incomplete description of methods, may be considered in analogous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

On average 52.2 per cent of the abstracts presented at the two EOS conferences reached full publication. Abstracts presented orally, including statistical analysis, were more likely to get published.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference/Research Agenda Conference from 2002 to 2008

Objective : The purposes of this study were to investigate the overall publication rates of presentations at the Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference/Research Agenda Conference (ACC/RAC) meetings (2002-2008), differences in the publication rates of platform vs poster presentations, and the consistency of the meeting abstract compared to the full-length journal article. Methods : Abstracts were obtained from proceedings published in the Journal of Chiropractic Education. Literature searches using PubMed and the Index to the Chiropractic Literature (ICL) were performed to locate peer-reviewed journal articles based upon those abstracts. Whether the article was based upon a poster or platform presentation, and the congruence of the information in the abstract and article were recorded. Results : We identified 776 proceeding abstracts, 249 of which eventually were published between 2002 and 2012. The overall publication rate was 32.2%. A total of 42.7% of platform presentations eventually were published vs 20.3% of posters. Congruency showed that 43.2% had the same title as the meeting abstract, 59.7% had the same authorship, and 88.8% had the same methods. Conclusion : Publication rates of abstracts from spine and orthopedic surgery national meetings range from 34% to 59%. The ACC/RAC meetings have similar publication rates. More platform than poster presentations reach full publication. The congruency of ACC/RAC abstracts to published articles is higher than national meetings in other fields.

Presentation of research in anesthesia: Culmination into publication?

Background:

To assess the quality of research presentations made in conferences, its success or failure to be published in a peer-reviewed journal is a well-accepted marker. However, there is no data regarding the publication of research presentations made in Indian conferences of anesthesiology.

Objective:

The primary objective was to determine publication rate of research presented at the largest and best attended national conference in anesthesiology, the Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists’ Conference (ISACON), and also compare it with the rate from an international conference American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA annual meeting) held in the same year.

Materials and Methods:

All 363 abstracts presented as poster or podium presentations at the ISACON, and an equal number of randomly selected abstracts presented at ASA annual meeting were searched on Pubmed and Google Scholar for their full-text publications in peer-reviewed journals using a standardized search strategy. As secondary observations, abstracts were assessed for completeness by noting certain components central to research methodology. Also, changes between abstract of the presentation and published paper were noted with respect to certain components.

Results:

The publication rate of presentations at ISACON and ASA meetings was 5% and 22%, respectively. The abstracts from ISACON lacked central components of research such as methods and statistical tests. The commonest change in the full-text publications as compared with the original abstract from both conferences was a change in authorship.

Conclusion:

Steps are required to augment full-text publication of Indian research, including a more rigorous peer review of abstracts submitted to ISACON to ensure their completeness.