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

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

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to provide the poster and podium publication rates from the 2016 to 2019 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) annual meetings and assess the quality of presentations ultimately published during this time.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

A total of 1,274 abstracts were presented at the 2016 to 2019 AAHKS annual meetings with an overall publication rate of 67.8% (864 of 1,274). Podiums (4.0 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.0 to 4.0) were more likely to be published earlier than posters (7.0 months, 95% CI: 6.0 to 7.0) (P < .001). The median JIF of published abstracts was 3.3 (95% CI: 3.3 to 3.7) with no significant difference in mean JIF of published posters or podiums (3.3 ± 1.0 versus 3.3 ± 1.0, P = .554). The likelihood of publication was significantly higher for podiums (odds ratio [OR]: 3.41, 95% CI: 2.29 to 5.07, P < .001), award-winning presentations (OR: 4.78, 95% CI: 1.69 to 13.55, P = .003), and with more authors (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.16, P = .014).

DISCUSSION

This analysis demonstrates abstracts presented at the AAHKS annual meetings from 2016 to 2019 had an overall publication rate of 67.8%, with podiums (86.4%) 3 times as likely to be published as posters (63.6%). If selected to present at the AAHKS annual meeting, individuals can be confident that their work has a high chance of eventual publication.

Seventy Percent of Abstracts Presented at the AANA Annual Meeting Are Later Published

Purpose

To assess the future publication rates of abstracts presented at AANA annual meetings between 2015 and 2019.

Methods

Abstracts presented at the 2015-2019 AANA annual meetings were identified. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for a corresponding manuscript for each abstract using the name of the first author, abstract title, and keywords. A level of evidence and anatomic category were assigned to each abstract. For each corresponding manuscript identified, the authors, journal of publication, journal impact factor (IF), time to publication, and number of citations were recorded.

Results

Overall, 70.5% of abstracts presented at the 2015-2019 AANA annual meetings (275 of 390) went on to future publication, with 63.6% (248 of 390) achieving publication within 3 years. The median time to publication from presentation was 12.8 months. Arthroscopy (29.8%) was the most frequent journal of publication. The average IF of publishing journals was 4.92 ± 3.41, with 61.8% of manuscripts (170 of 275) published in journals with an IF of at least 4.00. Published manuscripts received an average of 36.30 ± 47.6 citations per manuscript. A stronger level of evidence was associated with an increased likelihood of future publication (P = .008).

Conclusions

Pre-publication literature presented at the AANA annual meetings has continued to be associated with a strong likelihood of future publication in Arthroscopy and Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, as well as other respected peer-reviewed journals.

Clinical Relevance

Exposure to pre-publication literature may have an impact on clinical management. It is important to understand the quality of research presented in abstracts from AANA annual meetings. Knowing how many abstracts are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals provides an indicator of the quality and reliability of the research.

No difference in abstract publication rates between the open and closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons meetings from 2013 to 2019

BACKGROUND

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society has advanced the practice of shoulder and elbow care through the exhibition of research at academic meetings. The ASES annual meeting is a closed (member-only) conference annually held in October, while the specialty day is an open (non-members included) event that takes place during the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting week in March. This study aims to compare the rate of publication for abstracts presented at the open and closed ASES meetings from 2013 to 2019.

METHODS

The ASES website was searched to obtain the annual meeting and specialty day program agendas from 2013 to 2019. A standardized search protocol was employed to identify conference abstracts that went on to be published. Publications associated with an ASES abstract were analyzed through several variables including the time to publication, journal impact factor (JIF), and level of evidence.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the rates of publication of the open (76.5%, 121/158) and closed (75.3%, 223/296) meetings (P = .904). The median time to publication significantly differed between the open (7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0-10.0) and closed (11 months, 95% CI: 9.0-13.0) meetings (P = .02). There was no difference between the median JIF between the open (2.69, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) and closed (2.73, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) meetings. The distribution of the level of evidence in published articles comparing the open and closed meetings did not differ significantly (P = .446).

DISCUSSION

The overall quality of academic research presented at orthopedic subspecialty conferences can be objectively evaluated through abstract publication rates. Our analysis demonstrates that there is not a single significant difference among the publication rates, median JIF, and level of evidence distribution between the ASES open and closed meetings from 2013 to 2019. Impactful research is showcased at both the open and closed meetings. Societies that limit submissions from members only at annual meetings can consider soliciting research from non-members. While the quality of research would not decline if non-ASES members were invited to participate, the presence of a closed annual meeting may be a valuable tool for societies to expand their reach through member-exclusive benefits.

Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meetings From 2016 to 2019

Background

Research in the form of poster and podium abstracts is disseminated at subspecialty society meetings. The quality of this research can be defined by exploring the ultimate publication rate of the presented abstracts.

Purpose

To investigate (1) the manuscript publication rate of abstracts presented at the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) annual meeting; (2) whether abstract format (poster vs podium) influences overall or 2-year publication rates and time to publication; (3) the abstract factors that are associated with increased publication rate; and (4) whether publication quality as measured by journal of publication, level of evidence (LOE), and number of citations differs between posters and podiums.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

Poster and podium abstracts that were presented at the AOSSM annual meetings between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were included. The PubMed and GoogleScholar databases were searched by abstract title and authors to determine whether the related manuscript had been published. For published manuscripts, the journal, journal impact factor (IF), time to publication, authors, and LOE were recorded.

Results

The manuscripts of 664 abstracts (341 poster, 323 podium presentations) were published during the study period. The overall publication rate was 52.4%. Publication within 2 years of the meeting was found to be higher in podium abstracts (45.8%) compared with poster abstracts (37.8%) (P = .0366). Podium abstracts had a shorter time to publication (P < .001), higher LOE (P = .0166), more citations (P < .0001), and were published in higher IF journals (P = .0028). Poster presentations were more likely to undergo a change in first author between the time of the conference and future publication (P = .0300). The most common journal of publication was the American Journal of Sports Medicine (36.8%).

Conclusion

Abstracts presented at the AOSSM annual meeting had a high rate of publication within 2 years. There was no difference in publication rates between podium and poster abstracts, but podium abstracts had a shorter time to publication and more future citations and were published in journals with higher IFs.

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.

Publication rates of annual Research Day abstracts in peer-reviewed journals by residents and fellows at a community-based institution - A 10-year review of data and analysis

Introduction

Research and publications are becoming increasingly important for residents who want to match into competitive fellowship training programs and fellows looking to optimize career opportunities. Institutional Research Days provide trainees the opportunity to gain presentation experience and feedback about their studies. We evaluated all abstracts that were presented at Ascension Providence Hospital (APH) during Research Day over a 10-year period to determine publication rates of manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.

Methods

Research abstracts presented by both residents and fellows during Research Days at APH from 2009 to 2018 were reviewed. Abstracts were classified by type of project, type of presentation, trainee, winners and non-winners, and training program. Winners were defined as abstracts which won first, second and third place awards. Publication of manuscripts was evaluated by searching PubMed and Google Scholar. Fisher's Exact test was used to analyze categorical data and Student's t-test was used to analyze continuous data; p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 491 research and case report abstracts were presented by residents and fellows during Research Day over 10 years. For residents, 346 abstracts were presented; 25% (n = 85) were winners. The majority (51%) of winning abstracts were published, but only 26% of non-winning abstracts were published (p < 0.0001). More of both winning research oral (65%) and poster abstracts (61%) were published than non-winning oral (41%) and poster abstracts (22%, p = 0.02 and p = 0.0001, respectively), but publication rates for case reports were similar. The vast majority of published winning oral (88%) and poster abstracts (74%) came from the surgical programs. Fellows presented 145 abstracts; 30% (n = 43) were winners. A slightly higher percentage of winning abstracts (42%) were published compared to non-winning abstracts (32%, p = 0.3). Unlike the residents, the fellows had no significant publication rate differences between winning and non-winning research oral, research poster or case report abstracts, or between medical and non-medical subspecialties.

Conclusions

Despite their award-winning presentations, residents and fellows published less than half of these projects and less than a third of non-award-winning projects. However, most publications came from the surgical specialties, indicating the colleagues in the medical specialties were not publishing. Further data are needed to identify factors that can improve a trainee's chances of being published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Publication of oral and video presentations from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meeting over 11 years - What characteristics were important?

•

From 2006 to 2016, over 85% of SGO annual meeting oral plenaries were published.

•

Surgical videos had a publication rate of only 41%.

•

Multicenter, international and cohort studies were predictive of publication.

•

Among published content, cancer genetics was the most commonly covered topic.

•

Gynecologic Oncology was the most frequent publisher of conference research.

The goal of this study was to determine the characteristics associated with publication of oral and video presentations presented at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meetings. Abstracts were reviewed using publication booklets from 2006 to 2016. PubMed and internet searches were used to determine publication status. Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and logistic regression were used for statistical analyses.

Of 585 oral plenary sessions, 502 (85.8%) led to publications in peer-reviewed journals. The majority (75.7%) of presentations were clinical rather than translational (24.3%). Compared to single institution studies, multicenter presentations led to a higher publication rate (89.9% 80.5%; p = 0.001). Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies had publication rates of over 90%, while chart reviews and translational research were published at a rate of 87.1% and 80%, respectively (p = 0.004). 41.4% of all publications were in the specialty journal Gynecologic Oncology. Of 56 surgical videos, 23 (41.1%) advanced to publication in either peer-reviewed journals or as online videos: 32.1% were in print media, 5.4% were posted as accessible online videos (YouTube, Google Video, university websites). On multivariate analysis of oral presentations, multicenter studies (OR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.15–3.31; p = 0.01), cohort studies (OR: 3.13; 95% CI: 1.30–7.58; p = 0.01), and international studies (OR: 4.02; 95% CI: 1.20–13.40; p = 0.02) were most likely to be published.

Over 11 Society of Gynecologic Oncology annual meetings, >85% of oral plenary sessions led to peer-reviewed publication and 41% of surgical videos were published or accessible online. Multicenter, international, and cohort studies were more likely to be published.

Publication outcomes of abstracts presented at 2013 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT) conference

Introduction: Scientific conferences are useful in disseminating medical research and advancing the medical and scientific fields. An important measure of the success of such conferences is the proportion of research that is published in peer-reviewed journals. The conversion rates for toxicology abstracts to full-text publications at previous North American toxicology meetings were low. No study has assessed the publication rate from the 2013 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT) conference.Methods: We reviewed 316 abstracts presented at the 2013 NACCT Conference. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline databases using the authors' names and keywords, through September 2019. We then identified and excluded cases and case reports to reanalyze the data.Results: Thirty-three of 316 abstracts (10.4%) subsequently appeared in 17 different peer-reviewed journals, led by Clinical Toxicology (13 out of 33, 3%). Leading countries of origin for abstract submission were the USA (285), Canada (9), and the UK (8). Excluding case reports, 25 out of 207 abstracts (12.0%) achieved publication in peer-reviewed journals.Conclusions: Fewer than one in eight abstracts reached publication within six years of the 2013 NACCT meeting, even after accounting for and excluding case reports. This rate is lower than in other specialty medical societies.

Progress to publication of survey research presented at anesthesiology society meetings

BACKGROUND

Understanding how survey methodology and quality measures are associated with progress from abstract presentation to manuscript publication can help optimize the design of survey research in anesthesiology, and enhance respondents' confidence in the value of survey participation.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine if adherence to survey method recommendations and attainment of high response rates are associated with faster progress to publication among abstracts initially presented at anesthesiology society meetings.

METHODS

Abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) Annual Meeting, Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) Annual Congress, and the International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS) Annual Meeting from 2011-2014 were reviewed. Abstracts reporting original survey data collection were included in a systematic search for resulting publications in peer-reviewed academic journals. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyze progress to publication.

RESULT

Ninety-nine ASA, 76 AAGBI, and 30 IARS abstracts met inclusion criteria. Among these abstracts, 43 (43%) from ASA, none from AAGBI, and 7 (23%) from IARS have been published as original research articles or brief reports. Surveying patients or caregivers, as opposed to medical professionals, was associated with increased likelihood of publication (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6, 12.4, P = 0.005) as was a larger sample size (eg, >500 vs <100; HR = 12.9, 95% CI: 3.8, 43.6, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While abstract presentation facilitates rapid dissemination of survey research findings, the impact and utility of such studies may be limited until a full manuscript is published. In our review, 25% of abstracts presenting survey data at major anesthesiology meetings were eventually published. Larger sample sizes and a target population of patients or caregivers increased the likelihood of survey research being published in full form.