Association Between Study Quality and Publication Rates of Medical Education Abstracts Presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting

Medical education research study quality instrument: an objective instrument susceptible to subjectivity

BACKGROUND

The medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) was designed to appraise medical education research quality based on study design criteria. As with many such tools, application of the results may have unintended consequences. This study applied the MERSQI to published medical education research identified in a bibliometric analysis.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis identified highly cited articles in medical education that two authors independently evaluated using the MERSQI. After screening duplicate or non-research articles, the authors reviewed 21 articles with the quality instrument. Initially, five articles were reviewed independently and results were compared to ensure agreed upon understanding of the instrument items. The remainder of the articles were independently reviewed. Overall scores for the articles were analyzed with a paired samples t-test and individual item ratings were analyzed for inter-rater reliability.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in mean MERSQI score between reviewers. Inter-rater reliability for MERSQI items labeled response rate, validity and outcomes were considered unacceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results there is evidence that MERSQI items can be significantly influenced by interpretation, which lead to a difference in scoring. The MERSQI is a useful guide for identifying research methodologies. However, it should not be used to make judgments on the overall quality of medical education research methodology in its current format. The authors make specific recommendations for how the instrument could be revised for greater clarity and accuracy.

A Scoping Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology Curricula in Primary Care Residency Programs

BACKGROUND

While Women's Health (WH) is a priority for primary care, (Family Medicine (FM), Internal Medicine (IM), Pediatrics (Peds), and combined Medicine/Pediatrics (Med/Peds)), residency curricula remain heterogeneous with deficits in graduates' WH expertise and skills. The overall objective of this study was to assess the quality of WH curricula at primary care residency programs in the United States (US), with a focus on topics in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN).

METHODS

PubMed®, ERIC, The Cochrane Library, MedEdPORTAL, and professional organization websites were systematically searched in 2019 and updated in 2021. Included studies described OBGYN educational curricula in US primary care residency programs. Following abstract screening and full-text review, data from eligible studies was abstracted and quality assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

RESULTS

A total of 109 studies met the inclusion criteria. Over a quarter of studies were interdepartmental or interdisciplinary. The most common single-department studies were IM (38%) and FM (26%). Twenty (25%) studies addressed comprehensive OBGYN curricula; the most common individual topics were cervical and breast cancer screening (31%) and contraception (16%). Most studies utilized multiple instructional modalities, most commonly didactics (54%), clinical experiences (41%), and/or simulation (21%). Most studies included self-reported outcomes by residents (70%), with few (11%) reporting higher-level assessments (i.e., patient, or clinical outcomes). Most studies were single-group pre- and post-test (42%) with few randomized controlled trials (4%). The mean MERSQI score for studies with sufficient data (90%) was 9.8 (range 3 to 15.5).

DISCUSSION

OBGYN educational curricula for primary care trainees in the US was varied with gaps in represented residents, content, assessments, and study quality.

How Are Alternative Clinical Placements Performed Compared to Traditional Clinical Placements During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Sought Through a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical placement is the essential method of learning in health professions education, but it has been the most disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Institutions of higher education resorted to alternative learning such as telehealth, simulations, and blended-learning for clinical placement to ensure that educational activities continue without delay. However, this raises questions about student competency and necessitates making up for missed in-person hours. A thorough investigation of the effectiveness of alternative clinical placement learning is required. A systematic searching was conducted on ten electronic databases, and the quality of the included articles was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). A meta-analysis was conducted by pooling studies with examination mark outcomes. Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review and nine were included in the meta-analysis. The average MERSQI score for included studies is 11.15. Outcomes on student performance favor alternative placement, whereas perceived-based outcomes have mixed results and are slightly prone to traditional clinical placement. Meta-analysis indicates that alternative learning is either more effective than traditional clinical placement or at least on par with it. There is a discrepancy between perceived outcome and performance assessment regarding the utility of alternative learning to conventional clinical placement. Nonetheless, objective measurement outcomes and the meta-analysis support alternative learning as a reliable learning strategy for clinical education. Alternative learning for clinical placement experience can be improved further by adding more synchronous sessions, and implementing various learning methods, learning activities based on strong instructional design, and at least a short real-setting attachment.

Self-directed learning assessment practices in undergraduate health professions education: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The goal of this systematic review was to examine self-directed learning (SDL) assessment practices in undergraduate health professions education.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science) to retrieve English-language articles published between 2015 and July of 2022, investigating assessment of SDL learning outcomes. Extracted data included the sample size, field of study, study design, SDL activity type, SDL assessment method, number of SDL assessments used, study quality, number of SDL components present utilising the framework the authors developed, and SDL activity outcomes. We also assessed relationships between SDL assessment method and number of SDL components, study quality, field of study, and study outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 141 studies included, the majority of study participants were medical (51.8%) or nursing (34.8%) students. The most common SDL assessment method used was internally-developed perception surveys (49.6%). When evaluating outcomes for SDL activities, most studies reported a positive or mixed/neutral outcome (58.2% and 34.8%, respectively). There was a statistically significant relationship between both number and type of assessments used, and study quality, with knowledge assessments (median-IQR 11.5) being associated with higher study quality (p < 0.001). Less than half (48.9%) of the studies used more than one assessment method to evaluate the effectiveness of SDL activities. Having more than one assessment (mean 9.49) was associated with higher quality study (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our systematic review suggest that SDL assessment practices within undergraduate health professions education vary greatly, as different aspects of SDL were leveraged and implemented by diverse groups of learners to meet different learning needs and professional accreditation requirements. Evidence-based best practices for the assessment of SDL across undergraduate healthcare professions education should include the use of multiple assessments, with direct and indirect measures, to more accurately assess student performance.

Sources of funding for research articles in medical education journals from 1999 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Prior studies report that most published medical education research is unfunded. We sought to determine the extent and sources of funding for medical education research articles published in leading journals, and how these have changed in the last two decades.

METHODS

All research articles published in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019 were reviewed for funding declarations. Funding sources were categorised as: government; university; healthcare organisation; private not-for-profit organisation; and for-profit company. Time trends were analysed using the Cochran-Armitage test.

RESULTS

1822 articles were analysed. Over the aggregate 20-year period, 44% of all articles reported funding, with the proportion increasing from 30% in 1999 to 50% in 2019 (p < .001). The proportion of articles with government (10% to 16%, p = .049), university (6% to 17% p < .001), and not-for-profit funding sources (15% to 20%, p = .04) increased. Proportions of healthcare (3% to 4%, p = .45) and for-profit funding (2% to 1%, p = .25) did not significantly change with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 20 years, the proportion of funded published medical education research has significantly increased, as has funding from government, universities, and not-for-profit sources. This may assist researchers in identifying funders with a track record of supporting medical education research, and enhances transparency of where research funding in the field originates.

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the 2011-2019 Society for Education in Anesthesia Meetings

Introduction

The Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA) promotes dissemination of discoveries and innovations. We investigated the rate of publication of SEA Spring Meeting abstracts, hypothesizing that Research abstracts were published more frequently than Innovative Curriculum abstracts. We also studied the time between abstract presentation and publication and tracked the journals in which they were published.

Methods

All abstracts presented at SEA spring meetings from 2011-2019 were included. We searched PubMed for published articles that were based on those SEA abstracts. We calculated the overall publication rate and the respective publication rates for Research and Innovative Curriculum abstracts. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and performed the Pearson χ2 test to compare publication rates between Research abstracts and Innovative Curriculum abstracts. We calculated the mean number of years between meeting presentation and publication and tabulated the number of works published in each journal.

Results

A total of 351 abstracts (128 Research and 223 Curriculum) were presented at SEA spring meetings. The overall publication rate was 15% (52/351). Research abstracts were published more frequently than Curriculum abstracts: 24.2% (31/128) versus 9.4% (21/223); OR = 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.7-5.6); P = .0003. The mean time from presentation to publication was 1.7 ± 1.3 years. The works appeared in 20 different journals.

Conclusion

SEA Spring Meeting abstracts were published less frequently than abstracts from other medical professional society meetings (21%-72.3%). Although the lower publication rate of Innovative Curriculum abstracts unique to the SEA meeting largely explains this shortfall, a relatively low publication rate, even for the Research abstracts, signals opportunities for growth.

A Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MMERSQI) developed by Delphi consensus

BACKGROUND

The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) is widely used to appraise the methodological quality of medical education studies. However, the MERSQI lacks some criteria which could facilitate better quality assessment. The objective of this study is to achieve consensus among experts on: (1) the MERSQI scoring system and the relative importance of each domain (2) modifications of the MERSQI.

METHOD

A modified Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus among experts in the field of medical education. The initial item pool contained all items from MERSQI and items added in our previous published work. Each Delphi round comprised a questionnaire and, after the first iteration, an analysis and feedback report. We modified the quality instruments' domains, items and sub-items and re-scored items/domains based on the Delphi panel feedback.

RESULTS

A total of 12 experts agreed to participate and were sent the first and second-round questionnaires. First round: 12 returned of which 11 contained analysable responses; second-round: 10 returned analysable responses. We started with seven domains with an initial item pool of 12 items and 38 sub-items. No change in the number of domains or items resulted from the Delphi process; however, the number of sub-items increased from 38 to 43 across the two Delphi rounds. In Delphi-2: eight respondents gave 'study design' the highest weighting while 'setting' was given the lowest weighting by all respondents. There was no change in the domains' average weighting score and ranks between rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

The final criteria list and the new domain weighting score of the Modified MERSQI (MMERSQI) was satisfactory to all respondents. We suggest that the MMERSQI, in building on the success of the MERSQI, may help further establish a reference standard of quality measures for many medical education studies.

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals' and Community Healthcare Facilities' Research Contributions on PubMed

Purpose

Although research in general medicine is important, the contributions and characteristics of general medicine physicians (GMPs) in university hospitals (UH) and community healthcare facilities (CHF) remains unclear. Therefore, this study examines the popularity of research by affiliation, characteristics of journal publication, annual trends, and differences in impact factors (IFs) of journal publications.

Methods

This study is a secondary bibliometric analysis of articles in international journals published in PubMed over the past six years (2015-2020). The analysis compared English articles published by either UH- or CHF-affiliated GMPs in Japan in terms of, among other things, article type, research field, and IF.

Results

Of the 2372 articles analyzed, 1688 (71.2%) were published by physicians affiliated with UHs, 62.6% of which were original. Basic research, international collaboration, and ratio of IFs were significantly higher for such papers. In contrast, the number of CHF articles were significantly higher in the areas of clinical research and practice, with a greater proportion of case reports. There was no significant difference in IF between the disciplines within each affiliation, but the IF was the highest in experimental basic research and the lowest in medical and clinical education. In the six-year time series, the number of original papers by UHs and CHFs increased roughly twofold between 2015 and 2020, but the number of articles in the areas of medical education and healthcare quality and safety remained mostly unchanged.

Conclusion

The number of international papers published by Japanese GMPs has increased since 2015, particularly in terms of original papers and clinical research from UHs. However, there was no significant difference in the IF between UH and CHF publications. Our findings can guide the development of indicators, research, and education strategies regarding Japanese GMPs' research performance.

Assessing changes in the quality of quantitative health educations research: a perspective from communities of practice

BACKGROUND

As a community of practice (CoP), medical education depends on its research literature to communicate new knowledge, examine alternative perspectives, and share methodological innovations. As a key route of communication, the medical education CoP must be concerned about the rigor and validity of its research literature, but prior studies have suggested the need to improve medical education research quality. Of concern in the present study is the question of how responsive the medical education research literature is to changes in the CoP. We examine the nature and extent of changes in the quality of medical education research over a decade, using a widely cited study of research quality in the medical education research literature as a benchmark to compare more recent quality indicators.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis was conducted to examine the methodologic quality of quantitative medical education research studies published in 13 selected journals from September 2013 to December 2014. Quality scores were calculated for 482 medical education studies using a 10-item Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) that has demonstrated strong validity evidence. These data were compared with data from the original study for the same journals in the period September 2002 to December 2003. Eleven investigators representing 6 academic medical centers reviewed and scored the research studies that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary outcome measures include MERSQI quality indicators for 6 domains: study design, sampling, type of data, validity, data analysis, and outcomes.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant improvements in four sub-domain measures: study design, type of data, validity and outcomes. There were no changes in sampling quality or the appropriateness of data analysis methods. There was a small but significant increase in the use of patient outcomes in these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we judge this as equivocal evidence for the responsiveness of the research literature to changes in the medical education CoP. This study identified areas of strength as well as opportunities for continued development of medical education research.

Publication Rate in English of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology

BACKGROUND

Relatively low publication rates of abstracts presented at scientific meetings (i.e., 37.3%, 95% CI: 35.3-39.3) have been reported across various fields worldwide. However, no study has investigated the publication rate of abstracts presented at psychiatric meetings and factors associated with full publication in Japan. This study aimed to determine the proportion of conference abstracts in the psychiatric field that reach full publication in English and its associated factors in Japan.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology (JSPN) in 2013 and 2014, the largest psychiatric meeting in Japan, by searching for full-text publications in PubMed and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we examined factors associated with a successful full publication of the conference abstract.

RESULTS

Of the 737 abstracts evaluated, 132 (17.9%) were published in peer-reviewed journals; the publication rates for oral and poster presentations were 12.7% (46/363) and 23.0% (86/374), respectively. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the following factors were significantly associated with successful publications: poster presentations (odds ratio [OR]: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.10-2.57), original studies (OR: 4.16, 95% CI: 2.44-7.47), and academic institutions (OR: 5.77, 95% CI: 3.44-10.19).

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate in English of the conference abstracts presented at the JSPN annual meetings was relatively lower than those in previous studies. Further encouragement of the publication of the abstracts presented in psychiatric conferences in Japan would be helpful in disseminating scientific findings in the field of psychiatry. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Quality Appraisal and Assurance Techniques for Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAM) Resources: A Rapid Review

Free open access medical education (FOAM) has disrupted traditional modes of knowledge translation and dissemination. These are popular resources with a wide educational reach. Nephrology has been a leader in FOAM, but many skeptics still question the accuracy and reliability of this content. Recently, quality-assurance techniques have been developed to address these concerns. These techniques may be helpful for readers to appraise the online literature and for institutions to reward the production of high-quality open educational resources. We performed a rapid review of the literature. A medical librarian conducted a systematic search of the Medline and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Two independent assessors screened and selected articles, performed a hand-search of reference lists, and scored articles on their quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Thirteen reports were included for the final descriptive analysis. We identified 10 quality-assessment techniques, and 4 of them having been validated. The quality of the reports was fairly high, with an average Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score of 11.5 of 18 (SD, 2.3; range, 7.25-14.25). The calculated Cronbach α was 0.85. There is burgeoning literature on the topic of critical appraisal of open educational resources, and, more specifically, FOAM resources. Many of the techniques used are of varying quality and developed with different intended uses and audiences. By continuing to refine these tools, we can continue not only to support and legitimize the FOAM movement, but also foster individual critical appraisal skills that increasingly are necessary in this age of information.

Effect of mental rehearsal on team performance and non-technical skills in surgical teams: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Simulation-based training in medical education has become a common method to develop both technical and non-technical skills in teams. Mental rehearsal (MR) is the cognitive act of simulating a task in our heads to pre-experience tasks imaginatively. It has been used widely to improve individual and collective performance in fields outside healthcare, and offers potential for more efficient training in time-pressured surgical and medical team contexts. This study aimed to review the available literature to determine the impact of MR on team performance and non-technical skills in healthcare.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, British Educational Index, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases were searched for the period 1994-2018. The primary outcome measure was improvement in team performance and non-technical skills. Study quality of RCTs was assessed using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. The reported impacts of MR in all included studies were mapped on to the Kirkpatrick framework for evaluation of educational interventions.

RESULTS

Eight studies with 268 participants were identified that met the inclusion criteria, of which there were six randomized trials, one prospective pragmatic trial and one qualitative study. Three studies found MR to be effective in improving team non-technical skills. MR practices were varied and often poorly defined. MR benefited team non-technical skills when it was specifically designed to do so, but was not an automatic consequence of technical MR alone. The majority of studies demonstrated benefits of MR for technical performance, but only three showed positive impacts on teamwork. Overall the studies were of low quality and lacked sufficient discriminatory focus to examine impacts on teamwork dynamics.

CONCLUSION

MR can improve technical performance, but the benefits on non-technical skills are less clear. Future research should look at longitudinal mixed-method evaluation designs and focus on real clinical teams.

Pathways to Publication in Pediatric Hospital Medicine Educational Research

OBJECTIVES

Dissemination of rigorous, innovative educational research is key to inform best practices among the global medical education community. Although abstract presentation at professional conferences is often the first step, journal publication maximizes impact. The current state of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) educational scholarship dissemination via journal publication has not been well described. To describe educational research dissemination after PHM conference abstract submission, we identified the publication rate, median time to publication, and median publishing journal impact factor of abstracts submitted over 4 years.

METHODS

Abstract data were obtained from the 2014-2017 PHM conferences and organized by presentation type (oral, poster, rejected). PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and Google Scholar were queried for abstract publication evidence. We used logistic regression models, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine the association of presentation type with the odds of publication, time to publication, and publishing journal impact factors.

RESULTS

Of 173 submitted educational research abstracts, 56 (32%) were published. Oral abstracts had threefold greater and fivefold greater odds of publication compared to poster and rejected abstracts, respectively (odds ratio 3.2; 95% confidence interval 1.3-8.0; P = .011; odds ratio 5.2; 95% confidence interval 1.6-16.7; P = .003). Median time to publication did not differ between presentation types. The median journal impact factor was >2 times higher for published oral and poster abstracts than published rejected abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

Because abstract acceptance and presentation type may be early indicators of publication success, abstract submission to the PHM conference is a reasonable first step in disseminating educational scholarship.

Analysis of conference abstracts of prosthodontic randomised-controlled trials presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015): a cross-sectional study of the relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication rate of conference abstracts of prosthodontic randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) presented at International Association for Dental Research (IADR) general sessions (2002-2015).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study on conference abstracts.

METHODS

Conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015) were obtained. Literature search was performed in multiple databases to confirm the final publication status of conference abstracts. Two investigators independently extracted the data including conference date, origin, presentation type, exact p value, number of centres, institution type, overall conclusion, subspecialty, publication time and journal. The reporting quality of abstracts was assessed by two investigators according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. The relationship between demographic characteristics, reporting quality and final publication was analysed by χ² test.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Final publication rate, demographic characteristics and reporting quality of conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015).

RESULTS

Of the 340 prosthodontic RCT abstracts, 43.24% were published. The mean time to final publication was 22.86 months. Europe contributed the most number of abstracts but Asia and Australia had the highest publication rate. Oral presentation, multicentre trial and complete denture and overdenture subspecialty were associated with a higher publication rate. Reporting quality of eligibility criteria of participants, random assignment and primary outcome results for each group correlated with a higher final publication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at IADR general sessions (2002-2015) were unpublished. Oral presentation and multiple centres were associated with higher publication rates. Abstracts' reporting quality addressing participant recruitment, assignment and primary results correlated with trials' validity and applicability. Conference attendees may refer to this research to identify valid and applicable prosthodontic trials but should treat and apply results cautiously.

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.

Tracking Surgical Education Survey Research Through the APDS Listserv

OBJECTIVE

Survey-based studies are cornerstones in medical education research. The Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS) listserv offers a method to contact program directors (PD) and residents for such research. To facilitate research beneficial to the APDS, improve the quality of survey-based research and minimize survey fatigue, the APDS research committee (ARC) developed a survey review process to grant access to the listserv for research. This study was conducted to determine the impact of the review process on the quality of survey-based research and eventual publication.

DESIGN

This log was systematically reviewed identifying publications resulting from accepted surveys. Publications were categorically analyzed to determine the components of their survey tool methodology, response rate (RR), and medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) score.

SETTING

The ARC used a 2-reviewer peer-review process for survey distribution requests. The request was either accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. Accepted surveys were distributed through the listserv with an ARC attestation of approval.

PARTICIPANTS

A log of all survey requests maintained from 2014 to 2017 and subsequent publications.

RESULTS

Thirty-five requests were accepted (40%), 30 were reviewed discovering 10 surveys that led to 12 publications (publication rate of 33%). The average RR was 60% (SD = 29%). Detailed explanations of survey development strategies were reported in 5 (42%), consisting of methods building validity evidence such as expert consensus, modified Delphi method, and pilot group sampling. Half of study participants were PD (50%). MERSQI scores averaged 10 (SD = 1.6).

CONCLUSION

Based on those survey research published to date, the ARC survey peer-review process has enabled most accepted surveys to achieve adequate RR. Although the pool of accepted requests is small, it does highlight areas of improvement. With further refinement of the process, including questioning the survey development methods, the process and listserv can be a powerful tool for further research.

Quantitative Research Methods in Medical Education

There has been a dramatic growth of scholarly articles in medical education in recent years. Evaluating medical education research requires specific orientation to issues related to format and content. Our goal is to review the quantitative aspects of research in medical education so that clinicians may understand these articles with respect to framing the study, recognizing methodologic issues, and utilizing instruments for evaluating the quality of medical education research. This review can be used both as a tool when appraising medical education research articles and as a primer for clinicians interested in pursuing scholarship in medical education.

Best practices for teaching pharmacology to undergraduate nursing students: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review we describe best practices for teaching pharmacology to undergraduate baccalaureate nursing students based on the available evidence. Numerous teaching strategies employed in undergraduate pharmacology courses for nursing students have been summarized and compared for their impact on pharmacology knowledge retention, application of pharmacology theory to practice, and student satisfaction. Future directions for research are discussed.

DESIGN

The review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

The Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Academic Search Complete, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Education Source and Health Reference Centre Academic were searched using key search terms and phrases. Twenty studies, conducted between 2001 and 2017, met the inclusion criteria.

METHOD

Quality assessment was made in accordance with two appraisal tools: Kirkpatrick's framework and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI) for quantitative studies.

RESULTS

Online, simulation, and integrated methods of teaching pharmacology were most beneficial for pharmacology knowledge acquisition and student satisfaction. Traditional lecture, problem-based learning, and a flipped classroom were least effective strategies for teaching pharmacology to undergraduate students.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review will contribute to the body of knowledge used by nurse educators who teach in undergraduate nursing programs, may be particularly useful for undergraduate nursing program directors/administrators who are considering undergoing curricular changes, and may be a conduit for future researchers who wish to design studies aimed at improving teaching and learning within undergraduate nursing education.

Assessing the Quality of Evidence Presented at Annual General Meetings: A 5-Year Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Health care professionals rely on annual general meetings (AGMs) to obtain up-to-date information and practice guidelines relevant to their specialty. The majority of such information at meetings is presented through abstract sessions. However, the quality of the evidence presented during such abstract sessions is unclear. Standardized measures were applied to assess the quality of evidence of abstracts presented at the Canadian Society of Nephrology AGM over a 5-year period.

METHODS

Two authors independently reviewed all CSN AGM abstracts presented from 2012 to 2016. Using a schema published in 2011 by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM), each abstract was subsequently ranked based on the quality of evidence. Schema categories ranged from level I, representing the highest evidence quality, to level V, representing the lowest. The number of authors and the authors' institution affiliations were also collected from the abstracts, where available, or if affiliations were unclear, an internet search of the author was performed.

RESULTS

Six hundred forty-two articles were screened. In total, 70% (n = 450) met the inclusion criteria. When assessed, 15% of articles were level I (highest quality), 17% level II, 53% level III, 12% level IV, and 3% level V (lowest quality). A Jonckheere-Terpstra test demonstrated a significant trend of increasing quality of evidence (P < .05) and collaboration (P < .005) over the 5-year study period. There was a significant correlation between level of evidence and collaboration across years reviewed in the study, rs(98) = -0.226, P < .001.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate a consistent increase in quality of evidence and collaborative submissions over time. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first assessment and analysis of AGM presentation quality within internal medicine and its subspecialties. Documenting and monitoring changes in the quality of evidence with a standardized framework may offer valuable insight pertaining to the medical field and the research community.

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.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the American College of Physicians Japan Chapter Annual Meetings (2013-2014): A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the publication rate of abstracts presented at Japanese medical specialty meetings.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the American College of Physicians Japan Chapter Annual Meetings (2013-2014). Publication rates were determined by searching the MEDLINE database for full-text articles.

RESULTS

Of the 116 abstracts evaluated, 14 (12.1% [95% CI 6.1%-18.1%]) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the MEDLINE database.

CONCLUSION

Further studies to investigate the barriers to publication among Japanese investigators and additional efforts to improve this low publication rate are needed.

Full-text publication rate of abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings (2010-2012): a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings and the factors associated with publication.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

All abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings (2010-2012).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Publication rates were determined by searching the MEDLINE database for full-text articles published by September 2017. Data on presentation format (oral vs poster), affiliation of the first author, number of authors, number of involved institutions, journal of publication and publication date were abstracted.

RESULTS

Of the 1003 abstracts evaluated, 38 (3.8%, 95% CI 2.6% to 5.0%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the MEDLINE database. The median time to publication was 15.5 months (IQR, 9.3-29.3 months). More than 95% of published abstracts were published within 4 years. The publications appeared in 23 different journals (21 English-language journals and two Japanese-language journals). Based on univariate analysis using binary logistic regression, publication was more frequent for oral presentations (7.3%vs2.0% for poster presentations; OR 3.91,95% CI 1.98 to 7.75), and for first authors affiliated with university-associated institutions (6.4%vs2.4% for first authors affiliated with non-university-associated institutions; OR 2.75,95% CI 1.42 to 5.30). Based on multivariate analysis, oral presentation and first author affiliation with a university-associated institution were still the only independent predictive factors for publication (adjusted OR 3.50(95% CI 1.72 to 7.12) and adjusted OR 2.35(95% CI 1.19 to 4.63), respectively). Even among 151 abstracts presented orally by first authors affiliated with a university-associated institution, only 18 abstracts (11.9%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate of abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings was extremely low. Further studies are warranted to investigate the barriers to publication among investigators who participate in conferences where the publication rate is extremely low.

Publication rates of podium and poster abstract presentations at the 2010 and 2011 society of gynecologic oncology conferences

Objective

This study aimed to determine the publication rate of oral and poster abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conferences as well as the journals that most commonly published these studies, their 5-year impact factor, the time to publication, and the reasons for nonpublication.

Methods

Abstracts presented at the 2010-2011 SGO conferences were included in this study. We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate published reports of these abstracts. If an abstract's full-text manuscript could not be located, an author of the conference abstract was contacted via email to inquire whether the research was published. If the research was unpublished, the authors were asked to provide the reason for nonpublication. The time to publication, journal, and journal impact factor were noted for abstracts that reached full-text publication.

Results

A total of 725 abstracts were identified, of which 386 (53%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Oral presentations were published at a higher rate than poster presentations. Most (70%) reached publication within 2 years of abstract presentation. Abstracts were published in 89 journals, but most (39%) were published in Gynecologic Oncology. The mean time to publication was 15.7 months, with a mean 5-year impact factor of 4.956.

Conclusions

A 53% publication rate indicates that the SGO conference selection process favors research likely to be published and, thus, presumably of high quality. The overall publication rate is higher than that reported for many other biomedical conferences.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at Japan Geriatrics Society Annual Meetings (2011-2012): a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at Japan Geriatrics Society Annual Meetings. Publication rates were determined by searching for full-text publications up to September 2017 in the MEDLINE database. Factors associated with publication were determined.

RESULTS

In total, 618 abstracts presented at Japan Geriatrics Society Annual Meetings (2011-2012) were included. Of those, 146 (23.6% [95% CI 20.3-27.0%]) were published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in MEDLINE. The median time to publication was 13.0 months (interquartile range 6.0-25.8 months). More than 90% were published within 4 years. The publications appeared in 64 different journals, and 87.0% were published in English-language journals. Multivariable analysis revealed more frequent publication of oral presentations (25.4% vs 16.9% of poster presentations; adjusted OR 1.79 [95% CI 1.05-3.06]), randomized controlled trials (66.7% vs 22.8% for other study designs; adjusted OR 10.79 [95% CI 3.02-38.53]) and studies with n ≥ 100 (28.7% vs 18.4% of studies with n < 100; adjusted OR 1.97 [95% CI 1.32-2.95]). Because more than three-fourths of the abstracts presented at Japan Geriatrics Society Annual Meetings remained unpublished within 5 years after the conferences, additional efforts may be needed to promote their publication.

Conference presentation to publication: a retrospective study evaluating quality of abstracts and journal articles in medical education research

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence regarding the comparative quality of abstracts and articles in medical education research. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI), which was developed to evaluate the quality of reporting in medical education, has strong validity evidence for content, internal structure, and relationships to other variables. We used the MERSQI to compare the quality of reporting for conference abstracts, journal abstracts, and published articles.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all 46 medical education research abstracts submitted to the Society of General Internal Medicine 2009 Annual Meeting that were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. We compared MERSQI scores of the abstracts with scores for their corresponding published journal abstracts and articles. Comparisons were performed using the signed rank test.

RESULTS

Overall MERSQI scores increased significantly for published articles compared with conference abstracts (11.33 vs 9.67; P < .001) and journal abstracts (11.33 vs 9.96; P < .001). Regarding MERSQI subscales, published articles had higher MERSQI scores than conference abstracts in the domains of sampling (1.59 vs 1.34; P = .006), data analysis (3.00 vs 2.43; P < .001), and validity of evaluation instrument (1.04 vs 0.28; P < .001). Published articles also had higher MERSQI scores than journal abstracts in the domains of data analysis (3.00 vs 2.70; P = .004) and validity of evaluation instrument (1.04 vs 0.26; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the quality of medical education abstracts and journal articles using the MERSQI. Overall, the quality of articles was greater than that of abstracts. However, there were no significant differences between abstracts and articles for the domains of study design and outcomes, which indicates that these MERSQI elements may be applicable to abstracts. Findings also suggest that abstract quality is generally preserved from original presentation to publication.

United European Gastroenterology Week scientific abstracts and their progression to full publication

OBJECTIVE

Abstracts presentations at scientific meetings enable rapid dissemination of novel research. The percentage of abstracts that proceed to full publication from differing medical specialties is highly variable. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of abstracts presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All abstracts presented at UEGW between 2009 and 2011 were assessed. Cross-referencing of the first author, senior author and at least one keyword of the abstract was performed using PubMed and EMBASE databases. Abstracts and possible resultant full publications were then examined in tandem to ensure that they represented the same study. Data were also collected on lag time to publication, journal impact factors, country of the author and factors influencing subsequent publication.

RESULTS

A total of 6785 abstracts (1438 oral and 5347 poster presentations) were presented during the period assessed. Of these, 2099 (30.9%) proceeded to full publication in indexed journals. Oral abstract presentations were most likely to proceed to full publication compared with poster presentations (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.56) and were more likely to achieve publication in higher impact journals (median impact factor 4.78 vs. 2.89, P<0.0005). The median lag time to full publication was 15 (IQR: 7-15) months. The Netherlands had the highest United European Gastroenterology abstract conversion rate to full publication (46.8%).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to assess the publication rates of UEGW. Findings are favourable with similar studies from other societies.

Publication outcomes for research presented at a Canadian surgical conference

BACKGROUND

The failure of investigators to publish research in peer-reviewed journals following acceptance at a national or international meeting can lead to significant publication biases in the literature. Our objective was to evaluate the abstract to manuscript conversion rate for abstracts presented at the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery (CSVS) annual meeting and to evaluate the conversion rate for CSVS-awarded research grants.

METHODS

We searched for authors of abstracts accepted at the CSVS Annual Meeting (2007-2013) and recipients of CSVS research awards (2005-2013) on Scopus and PubMed databases to identify related publications.

RESULTS

We identified 84 publications from 188 research abstracts (45%) and 17 publications from 39 research grants (44%). The mean time to publication was 1.8 years and the mean impact factor was 2.7. Studies related to endovascular therapies demonstrated a trend toward a higher rate of publication relative to open surgical therapies (64 [56%] v. 37 [27%]). Additionally, we observed a similar trend in research grant topics related to endovascular therapies relative to open surgical therapies (9 [67%] v. 8 [38%]). Finally, CSVS research grant recipients who subsequently published had a significantly higher h-index at the time of receipt than those who had not published.

CONCLUSION

The CSVS annual meeting's abstract to publication conversion rate is comparable to that of its Canadian peers as well as to other medical specialties; however, a substantial publication gap remains. We identified several potential areas that may help to improve the effectiveness of CSVS research grants.

Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting

BACKGROUND

Abstracts accepted at scientific meetings are often not subsequently published. Data on publication rates are largely from subspecialty and surgical studies.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to 1) determine publication rates of abstracts presented at a general internal medicine meeting; 2) describe research activity among academic general internists; 3) identify factors associated with publication and with the impact factor of the journal of publication; and 4) evaluate for publication bias.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

All scientific abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine 2009 Annual Meeting.

MAIN MEASURES

Publication rates were determined by searching for full-text publications in MEDLINE. Data were abstracted regarding authors' institution, research topic category, number of study sites, sample size, study design, statistical significance (p value and confidence interval) in abstract and publication, journal of publication, publication date, and journal impact factor.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 578 abstracts analyzed, 274 (47.4%) were subsequently published as a full article in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in MEDLINE. In a multivariable model adjusting for institution site, research topic, number of study sites, study design, sample size, and abstract results, publication rates for academic general internists were highest in the areas of medical education (52.5%, OR 5.05, 95% CI 1.57-17.25, reference group Veterans Affairs (VA)-based research, publication rate 36.7%), mental health/substance use (67.7%, OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.39-13.06), and aging/geriatrics/end of life (65.7%, OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.15-9.94, p = 0.01 across topics). Publication rates were higher for multicenter studies than single-institution studies (52.4% vs. 40.4%, OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.10-2.52, p = 0.04 across categories). Randomized controlled trials had higher publication rates than other study designs (66.7% vs. 45.9%, OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.30-5.94, p = 0.03 across study designs). Studies with positive results did not predict higher publication rates than negative studies (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.6-1.31, p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that 47.4% of abstracts presented at a general internal medicine national conference were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in MEDLINE.

Which educational interventions improve healthcare professionals' resilience?

INTRODUCTION

This literature review summarizes the current evidence on educational interventions to develop healthcare worker resilience.

METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched using the search terms: education OR training OR medical students AND resilience. The initial search was refined using criteria including population (healthcare students and professionals), interventions (educational), and outcome (resilience changes).

RESULTS

Resilience has been defined and measured in various ways. The following educational interventions to develop resilience were identified: resilience workshops, small group problem solving, reflection, cognitive behavioral training, mindfulness and relaxation training, and mentoring.

CONCLUSIONS

The strongest evidence was for using resilience workshops, cognitive behavioral training, or a combination of interventions. The literature is sometimes conflicting suggesting that developing resilience is a complex process, and our understanding is not fully developed.

Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship: A Needs Assessment

OBJECTIVES

Education research is a developing field. It is unknown if there are adequate venues for scholarship distribution. The objectives of this study were to identify types of education scholarship produced, where this type of scholarship is published, barriers to achieving publication for education scholarship, and perceptions of adequacy of publication venues.

METHODS

Study participants were emergency medicine (EM) education and academic leaders who completed an online survey consisting of multiple-choice, completion, and 10-point Likert scale items.

RESULTS

A total of 45 of 59 (76.3%) subjects completed the survey. A total of 33 of 45 (73.3%) respondents had published education scholarship. Most (29/44, 65.9%) felt that there were inadequate venues for publishing education scholarship. Of those who publish education scholarship, most (30/33; 90.9%) publish either less than one or one to two peer-reviewed products per year, but collaborate with others more frequently (less than one per year, 7/33, 21.2%; one or two per year, 17/33, 51.5%; three or four per year, 7/33, 21.2%; five or more per year, 2/33, 6.1%). The most frequently published scholarship were curricular innovations and original research, with mean ratings of 5.61 and 5.21, respectively, on a 10-point Likert scale. Peer-reviewed print journal was the most frequently utilized venue, with a mean rating of 6.21. Other venues (mean rating) include peer-reviewed online journal (4.0), MedEd Portal (3.58), free open-access education (3.47), newsletter (3.0), and curricular toolbox (2.55). The most common rejection reason was "not suitable for this journal/venue," with a mean rating of 5.33. Other reasons include research methodology (4.07), small sample size (4.17), single-site study (4.28), and misunderstanding of project purpose (4.10). Respondents believed that additional education supplements in journals would be most helpful in increasing successful publication, with a mean rating of 8.31. Other helpful items included a central online repository of venues that publish education scholarship, online training in education research design/methodology, and an online networking site of education researchers to promote collaboration, with mean ratings of 6.88, 6.75, and 6.28, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of our sampling of EM education and academic leaders publish education scholarship. There is a perceived lack of venues for this work. Multiple barriers as well as potential strategies for success have been identified. This information may inform interventions to support the dissemination of education scholarship.

The publication rates of abstracts presented at the Turkish Respiratory Society (TUSAD) annual congress: adequate or not?

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to determine the publication status of the abstracts presented at the Turkish Respiratory Society Congress between 2011 and 2014.

METHODS

The abstracts were classified according to presentation type (oral presentations, poster discussion, etc.), study type, study design, topic, publication status, time interval between the presentation and the publication date, and the journal in which the article was published. The conversion rate of presentations into full-text articles in peer-reviewed journals were surveyed through Elsevier's Scopus.

RESULTS

The total number of abstracts submitted in the congress was 2 009. In terms of study type, the majority of abstracts were case reports (56.4%) and the remainder was original research. Totally, 179 abstracts were published in an indexed journal with an overall publication rate of 8.9%. 18.3% of oral presentations were converted into full-text article. Publication rates according to study types were 14.8% for original researches and 4.4% for case reports. The first three subspecialties with the highest publication rates were "sleep related breathing disorders" (16.9%), "interventional pulmonology" (16.7%) and "pleural diseases" (15.2%). Median publication/acceptance time was 8.0 months (0-38).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study evaluating the publication rates of abstracts presented in a respiratory congress. Although the number of presented abstracts in the congress increased year by year, prominently in the case reports, over all conversion rates were decreased. We put forward that encouraging the authors to conduct higher-quality investigations would raise the publication rate as well as improve the scientific quality of congress.

Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting

BACKGROUND

Failure to publish study results causes duplication of effort and is a significant source of waste. It also can lead to distortions in the evidence base that can lead to misallocation of resources and medical harm. Failure to publish is commonly studied by comparing the conversion rate of meeting abstracts or publication rate of registered trials and has not been studied in clinical chemistry. The objective of this study was to determine the abstract conversion rate in clinical chemistry.

METHODS

For the set of abstracts published from the 2011 annual meeting of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, we determined which converted to full publications and which had not. We used 3 methods to match publications to abstracts: 1) a survey sent to corresponding authors of abstracts, 2) a web scrape of Google Scholar, and PubMed, and 3) a manual search using Scopus. Publication rates were compared by topic, country of corresponding author, institution type, and award recognition.

RESULTS

Matching publications were found for 38% (95% CI: 34-42%) of the abstracts. The acceptance rate for submitted manuscripts was 34% (95% CI: 28-43%) among those who responded to the survey. Publication rates varied by topic (range 13% to 59%); rates from academic institutions were higher than commercial institutions (42% vs 16%, p<0.001). The publication rate of abstracts recognized "with distinction" was significantly greater than the publication rate of non-winners (68% vs 37%, p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of abstracts presented at the AACC national meeting are not followed by full publication.