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

Machine learning models can predict subsequent publication of North American Spine Society (NASS) annual general meeting abstracts

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Academic meetings serve as an opportunity to present and discuss novel ideas. Previous studies have identified factors predictive of publication without generating predictive models. Machine learning (ML) presents a novel tool capable of generating these models. As such, the objective of this study was to use ML models to predict subsequent publication of abstracts presented at a major surgical conference.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Database study.

METHODS

All abstracts from the North American Spine Society (NASS) annual general meetings (AGM) from 2013-2015 were reviewed. The following information was extracted: number of authors, institution, location, conference category, subject category, study type, data collection methodology, human subject research, and FDA approval. Abstracts were then searched on the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases for publication. ML models were trained to predict whether the abstract would be published or not. Quality of models was determined by using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). The top ten most important factors were extracted from the most successful model during testing.

RESULTS

A total of 1119 abstracts were presented, with 553 (49%) abstracts published. During training, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy metrics was the partial least squares (AUC of 0.77±0.05, accuracy of 75.5%±4.7%). During testing, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy was the random forest (AUC of 0.69, accuracy of 67%). The top ten features for the random forest model were (descending order): number of authors, year, conference category, subject category, human subjects research, continent, and data collection methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study attempting to use ML to predict the publication of complete articles after abstract presentation at a major academic conference. Future studies should incorporate deep learning frameworks, cognitive/results-based variables and aim to apply this methodology to larger conferences across other fields of medicine to improve the quality of works presented.

Abstract Presentation at Two Veterinary Surgery Conferences and the Impact on Publication Rate

OBJECTIVES

 The aim of this study was to compare the publication rate (PR) and report descriptive findings from abstracts presented at the American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS), the Veterinary Orthopaedic Society (VOS), and those presented at both conferences.

STUDY DESIGN

 All conference abstracts from 2001 to 2010 ACVS and VOS meetings were reviewed. PR in peer-reviewed journals was evaluated and compared between Group 1 (abstracts presented at ACVS only; n = 1,277), Group 2 (abstracts presented at VOS only; n = 645), and Group 3 (abstracts presented at both conferences; n = 121) abstracts. Abstracts were assigned a level of evidence (LoE) score.

RESULTS

 Approximately 6% of all abstracts evaluated were presented at two scientific meetings (Group 3). The PR of Group 1 (66%) and Group 3 (62%) abstracts was significantly higher than that of Group 2 (45%). The majority of abstracts were assigned a low LoE (3 or 4). Once presented, most Group 3 abstracts took <12 months to be submitted and <24 months to be published.

CONCLUSION

 This study found that a limited number of abstracts were presented at both ACVS and VOS, and PR was significantly different between those presented at ACVS only or both ACVS and VOS compared with VOS only. There was no significant difference in PR between Group 1 and Group 3 abstracts. This study has provided the initial comparison between abstracts presented at two veterinary surgical conferences.

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.

Factores asociados y tasa de publicación de los trabajos presentados en las ediciones del Congreso Científico Nacional de la Sociedad Científica Médico Estudiantil Peruana. 2010-2014

Introducción. El Congreso Científico Nacional (CCN) es un evento anual realizado en Perú y en el que estudiantes de medicina de todo el país presentan sus trabajos de investigación. Objetivos. Determinar la tasa de publicación y los factores asociados a la publicación en revistas científicas indexadas de los trabajos de investigación presentados a las ediciones del CCN realizadas entre 2010-2014 y describir las características de los trabajos publicados. Materiales y métodos. Estudio retrospectivo en el que se revisaron 407 resúmenes de trabajos de investigación. Se consideró una ventana de tiempo de publicación de 6 años (a partir de la presentación). Se realizó un análisis bivariado para evaluar las diferencias entre las variables categóricas y numéricas con las pruebas chi-cuadrado y U de Mann-Whitney, respectivamente. Además, se realizó un análisis multivariado mediante modelos de regresión de Poisson (uno crudo y uno ajustado), calculando valores de riesgo relativo (RR) con sus respectivos intervalos de confianza al 95% (IC95%) para determinar los factores asociados con la publicación de los trabajos. Se consideró un nivel de significancia de p<0.05. Resultados. La tasa y la mediana de tiempo de publicación fueron 23.83% (IC95%: 19.93%-28.23%) y 14 meses (RIC: 5-23), respectivamente. En el análisis bivariado, el año de presentación y el número de asesores se asociaron con la publicación de los trabajos (p=0.020 y p=0.007). En el análisis multivariado, se encontró que los trabajos con un asesor o aquellos con dos o más asesores tuvieron una probabilidad de publicación 2.19 y 2.61 veces mayor que los que no tenían asesor (RR: 2.19; IC95%: 1.10-4.36 y RR: 2.61; IC95%: 1.28-5.33, respectivamente). Conclusiones. La cuarta parte de los trabajos se publicaron en una revista científica y la participación de un asesor o más incrementó significativamente la probabilidad de publicación.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves (Spine Summit).

METHODS

The authors used a search algorithm in PubMed to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Spine Summit from 2007 to 2012. The variables assessed were presentation modality, topic, meeting year, publication year, destiny journal and its 5-year impact factor (IF), country, and citation count (retrieved from the Scopus database).

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred thirty-six abstracts were analyzed; 502 were oral presentations and 934 were digital poster presentations. The publication rate was 53.97% (775/1436). The mean time from presentation to publication was 1.35 ± 1.97 years (95% CI 1.21-1.49 years). The mean citation count of published articles was 40.55 ± 55.21 (95% CI 36.66-44.44). Oral presentations had a higher publication rate (71.51%, 359/502) than digital posters (44.54%, 416/934; OR 3.13, 95% CI 2.48-3.95, p < 0.001). Oral presentations had a higher number of citations (55.51 ± 69.00, 95% CI 48.35-62.67) than digital posters (27.64 ± 34.88, 95% CI 24.28-31.00, p < 0.001). The mean IF of published articles was 3.48 ± 2.91 (95% CI 3.27-3.70). JNS: Spine (191/775, 24.64%), Spine (103/775, 13.29%), and Neurosurgery (56/775, 7.23%) had the greatest number of published articles. The US represented the highest number of published articles (616/775, 79.48%).

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate of the Spine Summit is among the highest compared to other spine meetings. Many of the abstracts initially presented at the meeting are further published in high-IF journals and had a high citation count. Therefore, the Spine Summit maintains its high standards of scientific papers, which reflects the high quality of the research performed in the spine surgery field in North America.

Publication Rate and Evidence-Based Evaluation of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Veterinary Orthopedic Society Conference

OBJECTIVES

 Scientific abstracts are a common method for disseminating new research. There is no information on the publication rate of orthopaedic surgery abstracts presented at the annual Veterinary Orthopedic Society (VOS) Conference. The objectives of this study were to document the publication rate, the publication timeline and the level of evidence (LoE) of abstracts presented at an annual orthopaedic meeting.

STUDY DESIGN

 All conference abstracts from the 2001 to 2014 annual VOS meeting were reviewed, and final publication was determined through a comprehensive bibliographic search.

RESULTS

 Over 14 conferences, 1,112 scientific abstracts were presented with an overall publication rate of 47%. The majority of abstracts had low LoE scores, and those abstracts were published less timely than ones with higher LoE scores. Once presented, most abstracts took 1 year to be submitted and 2 years to be published. Dog (45%) and ex vivo (19%) studies were the most common. Publication occurred most frequently in Veterinary Surgery (40%), Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology (17%) and the American Journal of Veterinary Research (12%).

CONCLUSION

 The publication rate for abstracts presented at the annual VOS meeting is lower than those from a more generalized veterinary surgery conference. Publication occurs most frequently in a select group of journals, and the subject matter is limited in scope with a focus on dog and ex vivo studies. Overall, most abstracts presented at VOS contain a lower LoE.

Abstracts presented at the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) Congresses: Publication fate and discrepancies with full-length articles

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the full publication proportion (FPP) of abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 EAO Congresses, analyse the discrepancies between abstracts and their full publications, and explore potential predictors of FPP and discrepancies.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 EAO Congresses were retrieved. Associated full publications were identified by searching PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar. Discrepancies between abstracts and full publications were identified, classified and evaluated using a discrepancy score. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to describe cumulative FPP over time. Predictors for FPP and the discrepancy score were analysed using cox regression modelling and a linear regression model, respectively.

RESULTS

850 abstracts were included. The overall FPP was 36.4% with a median time lapse of 12 months. Higher FPP were significantly associated with oral presentation (HR=2.33; 95% CI: 1.68 to 3.22; p<0.001), multiple affiliations (HR =1.32; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.73; p=0.048) and presence of statistical tests (HR =1.78; 95% CI: 1.36 to 2.32; p<0.001). 91.3% pairs had at least one minor change from the abstract and 70.9% had at least one major change. Greater discrepancy score was significantly associated with longer time lapse (B=0.06; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.08; p<0.001) and being clinical research (B=1.30; 95% CI: 0.52 to 2.08; p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-six percent of abstracts presented at the EAO Congresses were published. Among these, more than two-thirds showed at least one major change in their full publications. Abstracts presented in oral implantology conferences should not be relied upon to inform practice.

Stronger Together in Lab: Multi-Center and Laboratory Spine Studies Are Closer to Publication than Single-Center and Clinical Spine Studies: Snapshot of Annual Meetings of the Spine Society of Europe

Study Design

This is a cross-sectional study of literature databases.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to analyze the predictive factors for the publication rates of spine studies.

Overview of Literature

Spine research has garnered worldwide interest due to the increased number of spinal disorders in aging population.

Methods

We evaluated the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Spine Society of Europe between 2009 and 2012. Additionally, we recorded presentation categories, study designs, research types, random assignments of the subjects, single- or multi-center- based methodologies, and significance of the results.

Results

We evaluated 965 abstracts, 53.5% of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. Publication rates were significantly higher for oral presentations (62.9%) and prospective studies (61.3%) as compared to the poster presentations (46.7%) and retrospective studies (44.2%), respectively (p <0.001). Clinical studies contributed to about 86.1% of the published abstracts. However, publication rates were significantly higher for laboratory studies as compared to clinical studies (70.1% vs. 50.8%, p <0.001). Multi-center studies were closer to publication than single-center studies (67.1% vs. 52.2%, p =0.009). Our study demonstrated that multi-center studies (odds ratio, 1.81; p =0.016) and laboratory studies (odds ratio, 2.60; p <0.001) are more likely to be published.

Conclusions

Multi-center collaborations dedicated to experimental studies in spine research are highly ranked and more likely to be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Publication Patterns of Presentations at the 16th Quadrennial Meeting of the World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

The quality of a scientific meeting can be quantified by the rate of full publications arising from the presented abstracts and the impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the publication rates of presentations from the 2013 World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery (WSSFN) quadrennial meeting.

METHODS

Scopus and PubMed databases were searched for the authors of the presentations to identify full publications arising from the relevant abstracts. Author and content matching were used to match an abstract with a full publication. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 77% (57/74), 56% (44/79), and 50% (79/157) of the paper, flash, and poster presentations, respectively, have been published, with an overall publication rate of 58% (180/310). Articles received a total of 5,227 citations, with an average of 29 ± 64.1 citations per article. The first authors who published their studies had a significantly higher h-index than those who did not publish (p = 0.003). The most preferred journals for publication were Journal of Neurosurgery, Acta Neurochirurgica, and Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery. The majority of the articles (117/180 [65%]) were published in a quartile 1 or 2 journal. The average journal impact factor (JIF) was 4.5 for all presentations, and 7.8 for paper session presentations. Studies presented in paper sessions were published in significantly higher-impact factor journals than those presented in poster sessions (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The WSSFN Congress had a relatively high overall publication rate (58%) compared to both other neurosurgical congresses and congresses in other scientific fields. The average JIF of 7.8 is a reflection of the high quality and high impact of the paper session presentations.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Assessing publication rate of abstracts presented in spine conferences as a quality benchmark: the example of the Canadian Spine Society Annual Meetings

INTRODUCTION

Publication rate can indirectly assess the quality of research presented in scientific meetings. Considering presentations at orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery meetings, 10.5-66% of abstracts are published in scientific journals. Publication rate of abstracts presented at CSS Meetings is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Canadian Spine Society(CSS) Annual Meetings from 2005to2014.

METHODS

In October2018, a systematic PubMed search was performed using title and authors of all abstracts presented at CSS Meetings from 2005 to 2014. The following information was retrieved from the articles and abstracts: year, type of presentation, publication in PubMed, time from presentation to final publication, journal and its impact factor(IF).

RESULTS

A total of 621 abstracts were presented at CSS meetings from 2005 to 2014. Publication rate in PubMed was 54.8%(N=340/621). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations(63.8%vs44.0%; OR=1.45; CI95%=1.20-1.75; P<0.0001). The mean time from presentation to publication was 1.76 years(±1.93). The 340 identified articles were published in 87 different journals. Most common journals were Spine(N=75; 22.1%), The Spine Journal(N=40;11.8%), and Journal of Neurosurgery:Spine(N=28;8.2%). IF ranged from 0.18 to 47.66(mean=3.73±4.68). IF of articles presented orally were higher than those presented as poster(P=0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

The CSS scientific meeting maintain along the years a steady high quality research presentations as manifested by its significant publication rate(54.8%) in medical journals with mean IF of 3.73. In comparison with other spine scientific meetings, publication rates of abstracts presented at CSS meeting is amongst the highest.

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.

High Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at Lumbar Spine Research Society Meetings

Background

Although publication rates from multiple orthopedic research conferences have been published in the literature, the publication rates of abstracts presented at the Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS) meetings have never been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the publication rates from the LSRS annual meeting years 2008-2012 and then to compare those rates with that of other spine research society meetings.

Methods

Podium presentations from 2008 to 2012 and poster presentations from 2010 to 2012 were reviewed. For each presentation, a PubMed search was performed to determine if a full-text publication existed. χ² tests were used to compare LSRS publication rates to those of other spine meetings. In addition, impact of published articles was evaluated by average citation count and average journal impact factor.

Results

From 2008 to 2012, a total of 332 podium and poster presentations were identified. The overall publication rate was 55.1% (183/332). For podium presentations, this was greatest in 2012 (66.0%) and lowest in 2008 (51.5%). For poster presentations, this was greatest in 2012 (53.6%) and lowest in 2010 (25.0%). The publication rate of presentations is statistically greater than the publication rates of Eurospine (37.8%, P < .001), North American Spine Society (40.0%, P < .001), The International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (45.0%, P = .012), and the Scoliosis Research Society (47.0%, P = .042) but not statistically different than that of Cervical Spine Research Society (65.7%, P = .059). In addition, the average citation count per published article categorized by year ranged from 13 to 31. The average journal impact factor of published articles categorized by year ranged from 2.31 to 2.55.

Conclusions

While LSRS is a relatively young society, these findings point to the high quality of presentations at this scientific meeting. These findings speak to the scientific rigor of presentations at LSRS.

Clinical Relevance

This study helps clinicians and scientists gauge the quality of a research meeting and make informed choices on which gatherings to attend.

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.

Rate of conversion of reports presented at the Turkish Society of Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy and Knee Surgery Congress into publication

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the conversion rate of oral and poster presentations into publications presented at four consecutive congresses held by the Turkish Society of Sports Injuries and Arthroscopy between 2008 and 2014 and to determine the publication pattern.

METHODS

The manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals were identified using the Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Google Scholar databases, ULAKBIM, and Endnote citation management software (X7.7.1). The identified manuscripts were classified according to the level of evidence, number of citations, subject, publication journals, time period until publication, and citation index of the journal.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2014, a total of 561 presentations were made, comprising 278 posters and 283 oral presentations. Of these presentations, 164 (29.2%) were published as a manuscript. Of the published articles, 114 were originated from oral presentations (40.2% of total) and 50 from poster presentations (18% of total). A significantly higher number of oral presentations compared to poster presentations were converted into publications (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was determined between the conversion rates of oral and poster presentations in 2014. The mean time from presentation at the congress to publication was 15.4 months (range: -144 months to +62 months). The mean impact factor of the journals at the time of publication increased for each congress. Evidence level of presented articles was significantly higher in the 2014 congress when compared to previous congresses.

CONCLUSION

The rate of conversion into publication was higher for oral presentations, which can be attributed to the fact that studies with a higher level of evidence are more likely to have been presented as oral presentations. Based on these study results, authors of oral presentations at congresses should be encouraged to increase the rate of conversion into publication.

Oral Presentations Have a Significantly Higher Publication Rate, But Not Impact Factors, Than Poster Presentations at the International Society for Study of Lumbar Spine meeting: Review of 1126 Abstracts From 2010 to 2012 Meetings

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate and impact factors (IFs) among all abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2012 meetings of the International Society for the Study of Lumbar Spine (ISSLS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The publication rate of abstracts presented at overseas meetings was reported to be around 50%. However, the publication rate and IFs of oral and poster presentations made at ISSLS meetings were unclear. Moreover, whether the publication rates and IFs differed for papers associated with oral or poster presentations at ISSLS meetings was unknown.

METHODS

We investigated all 1126 abstracts (oral, special posters, general posters) presented at ISSLS meetings held between 2010 and 2012. PubMed was searched to identify publications and IFs were determined using journal citation reports. We also compared the publication rates and IFs between oral and poster presentations.

RESULTS

The overall publication rate was 50.1% for three ISSLS meetings (564 publications/1126 abstracts). The overall publication rate for oral presentations, special posters, and general posters given in the 2010 to 2012 meetings was 62.0%, 48.3, and 46.6%, respectively. Overall, papers related to oral presentations had significantly higher publication rates than those of special and general posters (P = 0.0002). The average IFs of publications associated with abstracts presented at three ISSLS meetings was 2.802 for oral presentations, 2.593 for special posters, and 2.589 for general posters. There were no significant differences in average IFs between oral and poster presentations (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The publication rate for abstracts presented at ISSLS meetings was high and similar to publication rates for abstracts presented at other meetings concerning orthopedic and spine research. However, there was no significant difference in IFs between oral and poster presentations, suggesting that abstract evaluations cannot predict IFs of the eventual publication.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Oral presentation to publication: publication rates of abstract presentations across two pediatric neurosurgical meetings

OBJECTIVE Both the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Joint Section on Pediatric Neurological Surgery (AANS/CNS Pediatric Section) and the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery (ISPN) annual meetings provide a platform for pediatric neurosurgeons to present, discuss, and disseminate current academic research. An ultimate goal of these meetings is to publish presented results in peer-reviewed journals. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the publication rates of oral presentations from the 2009, 2010, and 2011 AANS/CNS Pediatric Section and ISPN annual meetings in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS All oral presentations from the 2009, 2010, and 2011 AANS/CNS Pediatric Section and ISPN annual meetings were reviewed. Abstracts were obtained from the AANS/CNS Pediatric Section and ISPN conference proceedings, which are available online. Author and title information were used to search PubMed to identify those abstracts that had progressed to publication in peer-reviewed journals. The title of the journal, year of the publication, and authors' country of origin were also recorded. RESULTS Overall, 60.6% of the presented oral abstracts from the AANS/CNS Pediatric Section meetings progressed to publication in peer-reviewed journals, as compared with 40.6% of the ISPN presented abstracts (p = 0.0001). The journals in which the AANS/CNS Pediatric Section abstract-based publications most commonly appeared were Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (52%), Child's Nervous System (11%), and Journal of Neurosurgery (8%). The ISPN abstracts most often appeared in the journals Child's Nervous System (29%), Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (14%), and Neurosurgery (9%). Overall, more than 90% of the abstract-based articles were published within 4 years after presentation of the abstracts on which they were based. CONCLUSIONS Oral abstract presentations at two annual pediatric neurosurgery meetings have publication rates in peer-reviewed journal comparable to those for oral abstracts at other national and international neurosurgery meetings. The vast majority of abstract-based papers are published within 4 years of the meeting at which the abstract was presented; however, the AANS/CNS Pediatric Section abstracts are published at a significantly higher rate than ISPN abstracts, which could indicate the different meeting sizes, research goals, and resources of US authors compared with those of authors from other countries.

Publication Rate of Podium Presentations From the North American Spine Society Annual Meetings

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the publication rate of podium presentations from the North American Spine Society (NASS) annual meetings from the years 2009 to 2011.

METHODS

In April 2015, a PubMed search was conducted using titles from the paper presentations as well as the authors. Of the search results that were found, the specific scientific journal in which the article was published was recorded. We analyzed further the top 4 destination journals and trends in publications in these journals over the study period. No study funding was obtained for this research, and there are no potential conflicts of interest or associated biases.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 671 paper presentations were available and 342 were published (51% publication rate). The highest publication rate was from the 2011 annual meeting, with 55.3%, and the lowest year was 2010, with a rate of 46.43%. Spine (32.75%), The Spine Journal (19.01%), Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (7.31%), and European Spine Journal (6.73%) were the top 4 destination journals. Over the study period, we found a significant decrease in publication rate in Spine (P = .001) and a significant increase in publication rate in The Spine Journal (P = .003). There were no significant difference in publication rate over the study period in Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (P = .15) or European Spine Journal (P = .23).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to our knowledge evaluating the publication rate of podium presentations from recent North American Spine Society annual meetings. We found an overall publication rate of 51%.

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.

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Congress of the European Society for Surgical Research during 2008-2011

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The presentation of scientific studies at major meetings serves to rapidly share study results with the scientific community. On the other hand, full-text publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals ensures the dissemination of science. This study examines the publication rate (PR) of meeting abstracts presented at the European Society for Surgical Research (ESSR) congresses and determines/compares the factors affecting the PRs.

METHODS

All presentations at the ESSR congresses held during 2008-2011 were retrospectively assessed. Manuscripts indexed in PubMed were included. The meeting year, journal impact factor (IF) in the publication year, study type, presentation type, time to publication and geographic origin of studies were assessed.

RESULTS

Among a total of 1,368 oral and poster abstracts, 48.7% (n = 391) of the oral presentations (OPs) and 29.7% (n = 168) of the poster presentations (PPs) were published in medical journals indexed in PubMed. The mean IF of the journals was 2.696 (0.17-14.95). The journals that published OPs had a higher IF than the journals in which PPs were published (2.944 vs. 2.118; p < 0.001). The PR was also higher in the OP group than in the PP group of journals (p < 0.001). The time to publication was 17.5 months (-166 to 82) and was shorter for PPs than for OPs (14.02 vs. 19.09 months; p = 0.01). According to the study type, experimental studies had a significantly higher PR (53.7%; p < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference in PR in terms of the prospective or retrospective nature of clinical studies. The clinical studies were also compared according to the IF values of the journals in terms of the prospective or retrospective nature of the study, and no significant difference was found (p = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

The ESSR congress is an efficient meeting for researchers from varied surgical disciplines and has a PR equivalent to that of similar scientific meetings. The congress has achieved a PR of 40.9% over 4 years with an average IF of 2.696 and a mean time to publication of 17.5 months, which is equivalent to that of similar scientific meetings. OPs have a higher PR in journals with greater IF values as compared with PPs.

Thirty percent of abstracts presented at dental conferences are published in full: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To review the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences and investigate the association between full publication proportion (FPP) and abstract characteristics, conference characteristics, and methodological quality of primary studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to November 2014 for studies that reported at least one FPP of abstracts presented at dental conferences, with a follow-up length of no less than 48 months.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies involving 10,365 abstracts presented at 52 conferences were included. The pooled FPP was 29.62% (95% confidence interval: 22.90%, 36.81%) for all presented abstracts and 51.97% (95% confidence interval: 43.19%, 60.70%) for randomized controlled trial abstracts. Abstract characteristics significantly associated with higher FPP included reporting of statistical analysis (P < 0.001), oral presentation (P < 0.001), basic science research (P = 0.047), and reporting of financial support (P = 0.009). Abstracts with positive (P = 0.29) or statistically significant results (P = 0.33) were not published more often than negative or nonsignificant results, respectively. In multivariable meta-regression analysis, conferences held in Asia (P < 0.001) and at a continental rather than national level (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher FPP.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than one-third of abstracts presented at dental conferences were published in full more than 4 years after conference presentation.

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.

The Publication Rate of Presentations at Two International Spine Meetings: Scoliosis Research Society and International Meeting of Advanced Spinal Techniques

STUDY DESIGN

Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the publication rate of podium presentations from the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) and the International Meeting of Advanced Spinal Techniques (IMAST) annuals meeting and to compare the publication rate of SRS/IMAST meetings to other orthopedic and spine meetings.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although various publication rates from orthopedic meetings have been reported, recent publication rates from the SRS and IMAST annual meetings are not known.

METHODS

Paper presentations and award-nominated papers from the 2009 to 2011 annual SRS and IMAST meetings were identified. Using PubMed, we searched for publications with a title of the paper presentations or containing the same authors. The publication rate of the award-nominated papers were evaluated in the same manner. We also identified the destination journals of the papers.

RESULTS

A total of 764 podium presentations were presented at SRS and IMAST from 2009 to 2011. Of these 764 abstracts, 339 were published in peer-reviewed journals, with an overall publication rate of 44.37%. The publication rates for the two different meetings (SRS and IMAST) were significantly different, 47.83% (SRS) and 41.53% (IMAST), p = .03. Award-nominated abstracts had a publication rate of 63.64% (49/77) significantly different than nonnominated abstracts, 42.4% (290/684); p = .0004. There was a significant difference in publication rates between the SRS award-nominated abstracts (72.97%, 27/37) and the nonnominated abstracts (45.25%; 138/305), p = .0001. There was no difference in publication rates for IMAST award-nominated abstracts 55% (21/40) and nonnominated abstracts (40.1%, 152/379), p = .27. The publication rate was highest for 2010 abstracts (45.78%), followed by 2009 (43.94%), and lowest for 2011 (43.43%). Spine was the most common publication journal for the two meetings.

CONCLUSION

In one of the first studies evaluating the publication rate of podium presentation from the SRS and IMAST annual meetings, we found an overall publication rate of 44.37% (47.83% SRS, 41.53% IMAST) and 63.64% for award-nominated papers.

Publication rate of paper presentations from the Cervical Spine Research Society annual meeting

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the publication rate of podium presentations from the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) annual meeting and to evaluate the publication rate of award-winning papers from the CSRS annual meeting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although various publication rates from Orthopaedic meetings have been reported, the publication rates from the CSRS annual meetings are not known.

METHODS

Paper presentations and award-winning papers from the 2007 to 2011 annual CSRS meeting were identified. Using PubMed, we searched for publications with a title of the paper presentations or containing the same authors. The publication rate of the award-winning papers was evaluated in the same manner. We collected the title of the journals the papers were published in and identified the most common journals.

RESULTS

Of the 321 podium presentations, 211 were published (65.7%). The publication rate was highest for 2007 abstracts (77.8%), followed by 2008 and 2011 (68.5%) and lowest for 2009 (58.5%). Of the 45 award-winning papers, 35 were published (77.8%), which was significantly different compared with the non-award-winning papers (63.8%, P=0.046). Spine, The Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine were the most common publication journals for the papers.

CONCLUSION

In one of the first studies evaluating the publication rate of podium presentation from the CSRS annual meetings, we found an overall publication rate of 65.8% and 77.8% for award-winning papers. This high publication rate indicates the quality of papers presented at the CSRS annual meeting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

What is the fate of scientific abstracts? The publication rates of abstracts presented at the 7th National Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Objective:

Oral and poster presentations held at national and international congresses are recognized as valuable tools for sharing current scientific data and experience among physicians. However, a large proportion of these works fail to be published in scientific journals. We have designed a study to identify the publication rate of presentations held at the 7^th National Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2009.

Materials and Methods:

A systematic search of databases was performed using author names and key words from the abstract title to locate publications in peer-reviewed journals corresponding to the presentations held at the 7^th National Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Information regarding mode of presentation, topic, type of affiliation, name and impact factor of the scientific journal, change in author names and time elapsed between presentation and publication were recorded and analyzed statistically.

Results:

Of 243 abstracts that were presented at the congress, 45 papers (18.5%) were published in international peer-reviewed journals, whereas 39 (16%) were published in national journals. The mean time to publication was 17±2 months for international and 11±4 months for national journals (p=0.102). The international publication rate of oral presentations was significantly higher than that of poster presentations (50% vs. 16.2%; p<0.03). The manuscripts were published in a total of 21 journals, with four journals accounting for 49% of the publications. The comparison of the publication rates of the universities with other institutions has yielded no significant difference.

Conclusion:

Alltough a significant proportion of the abstracts presented in the 7^th National Gynecology and Obstetrics Congress have been succesfully converted to publication overall, only a limited percentage of all abstracts have been published in international peer-reviewed journals. The relatively higher conversion to international publication rate of the oral presentations show that they are of higher interest and clinical relevance.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Canadian society of otolaryngology- head and neck surgery annual meetings: a five year study 2006-2010

BACKGROUND

To determine the rate of publication in a peer-reviewed journal for all oral presentations made at the Canadian Society for Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery's Annual Meetings from 2006-2010.

METHODS

All abstracts were searched by keywords and authors' names in Medline via PubMed and Google Scholar. Authors of presented abstracts not found to be published were contacted directly for further information.

RESULTS

50.5% of presented abstracts (n = 198) were subsequently published with an average time to publication of 21 months. For those abstracts found not to be published 74.6% (n = 167) of authors responded with further information about their research, 66% (n = 89) of abstracts with author response that were not published were never submitted for publication. Authors' main reasons for not publishing were that the research was still in process (34%, n = 21) or that a resident or fellow working on the project "had moved on" (26%, n = 16).

CONCLUSION

The publication rate for the Canadian Society for Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery's Annual Meetings from 2006-2010 is within the range reported by other conferences and specifically other Canadian conferences in different specialties; however, roughly half of presentations went on to be published. The main barrier to publication was bringing projects to the submission stage and not rejection by journals. Resources such as more time for research or personnel to coordinate projects may result in a greater rate of project completion.

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.

Publication of research presented at STFM and NAPCRG conferences

PURPOSE

Presentations of research are important in the dissemination of new knowledge, but they do not reach the same audience as research published in journals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proportion of presentations at recent major primary care research conferences that have become published.

METHODS

Oral and poster presentations for completed and work-in-progress projects from the 2007 and 2008 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) and Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) annual conferences were included in the analysis. The first presenter for each presentation was searched on PubMed, and titles and abstracts for presentations were compared for content to titles and abstracts of potential matches found on PubMed. We analyzed the proportion of presentations that were published in peer-reviewed journals, mean time to publication, and the proportions of the type of journal in which the article appeared (family medicine vs other) were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 1,329 presentations included in the study. Overall, 34.4% of projects presented were also published. More oral presentations (42.9%) were published than were poster presentations (25.3%) (P <.001). Mean time to publication was 15.4 months. Oral presentations were published more quickly (13.7 months) than poster presentations (18.6 months) (P <.001). Published reports appeared in 192 different journals. Family medicine journals accounted for 36.5% of published.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of all presentations at STFM and NAPCRG conferences were published in journals indexed in PubMed. Time to publication was comparable to that of other specialties. Fewer than 2 of every 5 reports were published are in a family medicine journal, suggesting vast breadth in family medicine research. Family medicine academicians need to refocus efforts on transforming presentations into published articles in peer-reviewed journals for broader dissemination of research findings.