Publication rate of abstracts from the annual ASTRO meeting: comparison with other organizations

Changes in scientific characteristics of abstracts accepted to the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, 1990-2020

OBJECTIVES

Since its founding in 1989, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) has accepted thousands of abstracts for presentation at its annual meeting. We reviewed abstracts to characterize temporal changes in study design, abstract topics, quality scores, and proportion of abstracts published as manuscripts.

METHODS

In this serial cross-sectional study, we compiled accepted SAEM abstracts at 5-year intervals (1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020) and then randomly selected 100 abstracts from each year for review by two investigators. We documented each abstract's study design, sample size, and whether it was a single-center or multicenter study. We assigned each abstract to the most appropriate topic category. Applying SAEM's abstract scoring system from 2020, we calculated the mean overall quality score per year. Finally, we searched PubMed to determine if abstracts from 1990-2015 meetings were published as manuscripts.

RESULTS

The number of accepted abstracts increased from 180 in 1990 to 879 in 2020 (+388%). The most common study design changed from laboratory study in 1990 (22%) to cohort study in 2020 (44%; p < 0.001). The median study sample size increased over time, from 105 (interquartile range [IQR] 25-389) in 1990 to 544 (IQR 102-2067) in 2020 (p < 0.001). Multicenter studies have become more common (19% in 1990 vs. 40% in 2020; p = 0.001). The most common topic categories also changed from cardiology/pulmonary/airway (40%) and orthopedic/trauma/burn (17%) in 1990 to health services research/health policy/operations (25%) and cardiology/pulmonary/airway (22%) in 2020. There was a 20% increase in overall quality scores (p < 0.001). Between 37% and 49% of the abstracts reviewed from each year were later published as manuscripts, with no significant change over time (p = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 30 years, there have been significant changes to the study designs, topics, and quality scores of SAEM meeting abstracts. However, conversion of abstracts to published manuscripts remains a challenge.

Charting the course from abstract to published article

OBJECTIVE

Abstracts act as short, efficient sources of new information. This intentional brevity potentially diminishes scientific reliability of described findings. The authors' objective was to 1) determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) annual meeting that subsequently are published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) assess AANS abstract publications for publication bias, and 3) assess AANS abstract publications for differing results.

METHODS

The authors screened all abstracts from the annual 2012 AANS meeting and identified their corresponding full-text publication, if applicable, by searching PubMed/MEDLINE. The abstract and subsequent publication were analyzed for result type (positive or negative) and differences in results.

RESULTS

Overall, 49.3% of abstracts were published as papers. Many (18.1%) of these published papers differed in message from their original abstract. Publication bias exists, with positive abstracts being 40% more likely to be published than negative abstracts. The top journals in which the full-text articles were published were Journal of Neurosurgery (13.1%), Neurosurgery (7.3%), and World Neurosurgery (5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Here, the authors demonstrate that alone, abstracts are not reliable sources of information. Many abstracts ultimately remain unpublished; therefore, they do not attain a level of scientific scrutiny that merits alteration of clinical care. Furthermore, many that are published have differing results or conclusions. In addition, positive publication bias exists, as positive abstracts are more likely to be published than negative abstracts.

Research on Research: Publication of Projects Presented at Medical Imaging Research Days Across Canada

OBJECTIVE

Twenty-one previous studies have shown a mean presentation to publication conversion rates at radiology conferences of 26%. There have been no prior studies on publication of medical imaging residency research presentations. Our objective was to determine how many medical imaging resident research projects presented at internal program research days across Canada go on to publication.

METHODS

A list of unique medical imaging resident research presentations given at program research days during the 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 academic years was generated via e-mail contact of programs or review of publicly available data on program websites. Unique resident presentations were identified and publications associated with these presentations were sought via database and Internet searching. The number of publications, publishing journals, and time to publication was determined.

RESULTS

Data from 32 research days at 7 programs were assessed. A total of 287 resident presentations were identified. Of these 287 presentations, 99 had associated publications (34% presentation to publication conversation rate), with variation in presentation numbers and publication conversion rates between schools. These 99 presentations were associated with a total of 118 publications in a total of 57 different journals. Time from presentation to publication was calculable for 109 of the 118 articles. Fifteen (14%) were published before research day and 94 (86%) were published after research day with a mean time to publication of 12.3 ± 13.6 months for all articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-four percent of resident research presentations at Canadian medical imaging program research days go on to publication.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.

Peer-Reviewed Journal Publication of Abstracts Presented at an International Emergency Medicine Scientific Meeting: Outcomes and Comparison With the Previous Meeting

Scientific presentations at professional organization meetings have long been recognized as a method of providing up-to-date and novel information to both the medical and scientific community. After abstract presentation at a medical conference, the subsequent publication rate of full-text articles is variable, and few studies have examined this topic with respect to international emergency medicine conferences. This study's goals were to determine the publication rate of articles resulting from abstracts presented at the 12th International Conference on Emergency Medicine 2008 in San Francisco, Calif, and to compare this with data from the previous International Conference on Emergency Medicine 2006 conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. We found a reduction in publication rate from 33.2% in 2006 to 22.8% in 2008 and that the host country furnished a greater proportion of the abstracts. It would be interesting to examine how these potential trends played out over more extended periods.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists annual scientific meetings: Any change since 2004?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at annual Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) conferences.

METHODS

The College's Annual Scientific Meetings (ASMs) from 2010 to 2013 were examined, with the goal of comparing these results to the findings of an earlier identical study that examined RANZCR ASMs from 1996 to 1999.

RESULTS

Of the 1152 research abstracts presented, 468 (41%) had been published as full articles. The overall abstract to publication ratio (APR) for radiology was 34% and for radiation oncology was 57%. For oral presentations, these were 44% for radiology and 55% for radiation oncology. Papers were published in a wide variety of journals but 23% of articles appeared in the College's journal, the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology. The mean time between presentation and publication was 16.5 months (median 17 months).

CONCLUSION

Publication rates are comparable with international reports. The APR has increased since the previous study for both disciplines, but more so for Radiation Oncology.

Publication outcomes of the abstracts presented at the 2011 European Congress on Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculo-Skeletal Diseases (ECCEO-IOF11): A position paper of the European Society for Clinical and Economical Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculo-Skeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the International Osteoporosis and Other Skeletal Diseases Foundation (IOF)

The publication outcomes of the abstracts presented during the ECCEO-IOF 2011 reflect a high research productivity, support the robustness of the selection process conducted by the Scientific Advisory Committee and suggest that IOF-ESCEO WCO is successful in its mission to promote and disseminate research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The European (now World) Congress on Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculo-Skeletal Diseases (IOF-ESCEO WCO, formerly ECCEO-IOF) is the largest worldwide event fully dedicated to the clinical, epidemiological, translational and economic aspects of bone, joint and muscle diseases. The role of the Scientific Advisory Committee is to select abstracts for oral communication or poster presentation based on a short summary of the research. The aim of the present survey was to determine the publication rate in international peer reviewed journals of abstracts accepted at the IOF-ESCEO WCO 2011 Meeting (formerly ECCEO-IOF11), the relationship, if any, between the presentation format of the abstract and its subsequent full publication and the impact factor of the journal in which research was published.

RESULTS

Of 619 abstracts accepted at the 2011 ECCEO-IOF11 annual meeting, 45 were accepted for oral communication and 574 accepted for poster presentation. In the subsequent 3 years (2011-2014), 191 abstracts were published as a full-length manuscript (30.9 %). The publication rate was significantly higher for oral communications (75.6 %) than for poster presentations (27.4 %; p < 0.0001). Publications derived from oral communications were published in journals with a higher impact factor (8.3 ± 10.1) than those arising from poster presentations (4.0 ± 2.3; p < 0.0001), but there was no difference in the time to publication (OC 16.3 [IQR 8.4-23.3] months vs PP 11.3 [IQR 5.3-21.4]; p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

These results indicate a high research productivity and an appropriate selection of oral communication by the Scientific Advisory Committee of ESCEO-IOF.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2010 Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology meetings

BACKGROUND

We set out to determine the rate, time-trend, and defining factors associated with publication of abstracts presented at two annual scientific meetings of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (caro).

METHODS

All abstracts accepted for oral presentation in 2007 and 2010 were obtained from the caro program archives and searched using the PubMed database. Variables in the dataset included the year of presentation at caro and of publication in a scientific journal, time to publication (in months), publishing journal, impact factor of publishing journal, abstract research type (clinical, technical, or basic science) and disease site, country of origin, and university of the first author.

RESULTS

Overall, 88 of 172 abstracts from the 2007 (n = 102) and 2010 (n = 70) caro meetings were published in peer-reviewed journals (publication rate: 51.2%). Mean time to publication was 18.5 months. Among research types, clinical research (62.5%) and, among disease sites, prostate cancer (40.4%) were most likely to be published. Of all the abstracts, 50.1% were contributed by only 2 universities, a proportion that resembles the overall abstract publication rate of 51.2%. The conversion rate for those 2 universities (51.1%) is very similar to that for all abstracts presented at the two meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

Half the abstracts presented at the 2007 and 2010 caro meetings were ultimately published in journals indexed in PubMed by about 1.5 years after presentation. Half the abstracts and publications came from just 2 universities; more must to be done to close the gap.

Quantifying federal funding and scholarly output related to the academic emergency medicine consensus conferences

PURPOSE

Every year since 2000, Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) has presented a one-day consensus conference to generate a research agenda for advancement of a scientific topic. One of the 12 annual issues of AEM is reserved for the proceedings of these conferences. The purpose of this study was to measure academic productivity of these conferences by evaluating subsequent federal research funding received by authors of conference manuscripts and calculating citation counts of conference papers.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional study. In 2012, the NIH RePORTER system was searched to identify subsequent federal funding obtained by authors of the consensus conference issues from 2000 to 2010. Funded projects were coded as related or unrelated to conference topic. Citation counts for all conference manuscripts were quantified using Scopus and Google Scholar. Simple descriptive statistics were reported.

RESULTS

Eight hundred fifty-two individual authors contributed to 280 papers published in the 11 consensus conference issues. One hundred thirty-seven authors (16%) obtained funding for 318 projects. A median of 22 topic-related projects per conference (range 10-97) accounted for a median of $20,488,331 per conference (range $7,779,512 to $122,918,205). The average (± SD) number of citations per paper was 15.7 ± 20.5 in Scopus and 23.7 ± 32.6 in Google Scholar.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors of consensus conference manuscripts obtained significant federal grant support for follow-up research related to conference themes. In addition, the manuscripts generated by these conferences were frequently cited. Conferences devoted to research agenda development appear to be an academically worthwhile endeavor.

Factors associated with publication of plenary presentations at the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists annual meeting

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate and factors associated with publication of plenary abstract presentations from the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists annual meeting.

METHODS

Plenary presentations were reviewed from 2000 to 2005. A PubMed search was performed to identify subsequent peer-reviewed publication of these presentations. Chi-squared test and logistic regression were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Of 378 main, focused or express plenary presentations, 173 (45.8%) involved multiple and 205 (54.2%) single institutions. The types of study include: chart review (29.4%), cohort study (28.0%), translational (23.5%), and randomized clinical trial (6.9%). 309 (81.7%) of presentations were subsequently published. The median time from presentation to publication was 14months (range: 1-85). Studies from multiple vs. single institutions were more likely to be published (87.9% vs. 76.6%; p=0.005). In addition, randomized controlled trials were more likely to be published compared with chart review, cohort, and translation research (92.3% vs. 83.8%, 77.4%, and 74.2%; p<0.01). On multivariate analysis, multi-institutional studies (OR=2.28, 95% CI=1.28-4.04; p=0.005) and type of study (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.19-2.26; p=0.002) were independent factors associated with publication. In addition, multi-institutional studies had longer times from presentation to publication compared with their counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

A high percentage of plenary presentations at the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists annual meeting resulted in subsequent publication. Multi-institutional studies and randomized clinical trials were more likely to be published.

The geography of clinical cancer research: analysis of abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is the largest forum for presentation of clinical research in oncology. We quantified the contribution of countries and assessed correlates of their presence at such meetings.

METHODS

After stratifying abstracts according to category of presentation (oral, poster, and 'publication only'), we took a random sample of 10% of the studies presented at years 2001-2003 and 2006-2008. We assigned abstract nationality using the affiliation of authors. For multinational studies, we developed an algorithm to assign nationality.

RESULTS

Of the 22 045 eligible abstracts, 2206 were analyzed and represented 71 countries: 905 (41%) abstracts were from a single institution, 969 (44%) were multicenter, uninational studies, and 332 (15%) were multinational studies. United States nationality was assigned to 49% of all abstracts and the next 14 countries with a higher number of studies accounted for 41%. There was a statistically significant temporal trend in the proportion of multinational studies. Also, multinational studies and abstracts with United States nationality were more frequently presented in oral and poster fashion and had more frequent involvement of the pharmaceutical industry.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a geographic overview of clinical cancer research and indicates that multinational collaboration is increasing.

[Publication rate for oral presentations made at the Journées Dermatologiques de Paris meeting]

BACKGROUND

The fate of oral presentations presented at a dermatological meeting has not been assessed to date. Our aim was to determine the publication rate for oral presentations presented at the "Journées dermatologiques de Paris" (JDP) meeting in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary goals were to identify factors associated with publication and to examine the consistency of reporting of research findings presented in the conference abstract and subsequent full publication.

METHODS

Abstracts presented orally at the JDP 1999-2004 were identified in the book of congress abstracts. Two independent operatives performed a Medline search cross-referencing lead and last authors and keywords.

RESULTS

The publication rate was 57.6% with mean time to publication of 20.3months. The median impact factor was 2.8. Factors associated with subsequent publication were study topic (p=0.04 for oncology) and study type (p=0.03 for fundamental research and p=0.005 for randomized controlled trials). The congress abstracts and full-text publication differed primarily in terms of sample size and data given in the "Results" section.

DISCUSSION

More than half of all abstracts presented orally at the JDP congress are subsequently published in journals with a median impact factor comparable to those seen for other scientific congresses for which similar analysis has been conducted. These results confirm the scientific quality of this particular congress, in addition to its vocation of continuous medical training.

Conference abstracts of a new oncology drug do not always lead to full publication: proceed with caution

BACKGROUND

Conference abstracts, often the first public record of a study, serve as a catalyst to initiate clinical and policy change. On average, 45% of all conference abstracts subsequently appear as full publications; however, the generalizability of this finding to studies of one intervention, in one population, is unknown. Our objectives were to determine the full publication rate of a cohort of abstracts, median time to publication, and predictors of these relationships.

METHODS

We included the first 5 years of clinical abstract reports of rituximab for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) from American Society of Hematology (ASH) meetings (1997-2001), identified all unique studies, and used electronic databases to identify full publications. We determined the full publication rate, median time to publication, and predictors of these outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 109 abstracts representing 86 unique studies, the publication rate was 52.3% (45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.3, 63.2), and the median time to publication, 1.4 years with 6.8 years' follow-up. Author affiliation with industry (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI]=4.60 [1.32, 16.08] and presentation type (oral OR=5.94 [1.31, 26.88], poster OR=3.39 [1.24, 9.25]; reference, publication in conference abstract book only) independently predicted subsequent full publication in the adjusted analysis. We identified no predictors of time to publication.

INTERPRETATION

We suggest cautious consideration of data from conference proceedings to inform new technology clinical or policy decisions. Future work needs to examine the generalizability of our results to other diseases and technologies.

The publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2003 urological Brazilian meeting

OBJECTIVE

To determine the publication rate of orally-presented abstracts from the 2003 Urological Brazilian Meeting, as well as the factors determining this publication rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The publication rate of the 313 orally-presented abstracts at the 2003 Urological Brazilian Meeting was evaluated by scanning the Lilacs, Scielo and Medline databases. The time between presentation and publication, the state and country of the abstract, the research methodology (cross-sectional, case-control, retrospective case series, prospective case series or clinical trial), whether drugs were utilized and the topic of the study were all characterized.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine percent of the abstracts were published after a median time of 14 months (range: 1 to 51 months). There were high publication rates for cross-sectional abstracts (75%), drug utilization studies (51.3%), clinical trials (50%) and prospective case series' (48.1%). However, there was only a moderate statistical trend towards a higher publication rate in the prospective case series (p=0.07), while the retrospective case series' showed statistically lower publication rates than the other groups (33.7%, p=0.04). Abstracts on laparoscopic surgery had the highest publication rate (61.9%, p=0.03) compared to others topics. In 57% of the unpublished abstracts, there was no interest in or attempt to publish, and rejection was responsible for the lack of publication of only 4% of the abstracts.

CONCLUSION

The publication rate of the orally-presented abstracts from the 2003 Urological Brazilian Meeting was comparable to that of international congresses. The subsequent publication of presented abstracts and the selection of prospective studies with stronger evidence should be encouraged and may improve the scientific quality of the meeting.

Peer review in publication: factors associated with the full-length publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making

BACKGROUND

: Many studies are presented at scientific meetings and are summarized in abstract form prior to their full-length publication. Publication rates of these studies may be an indicator in judging their quality.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the rate at which studies reported in an abstract form are subsequently published in full length and identify factors associated with publication success.

METHODS

: All abstracts presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of SMDM in October 2003 were reviewed and assessed for subsequent publication in peer-reviewed journals through December 31, 2007. For each abstract we recorded the presenting author's affiliation, presentation mode, and country of origin. For published articles, we recorded the publication date, type of journal, and the journal's impact factor. We calculated the mean and median time from conference presentation to publication using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

: Of 239 presented abstracts, 64 (27%) were subsequently published in full-length, including 39% of podium, and 20% of poster presentations (P = 0.002). Mean and median times from presentation to publication were 20.5 and 19.0 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in mean publication lag for podium and poster presentations.

CONCLUSIONS

: A significant proportion of studies presented at the SMDM meeting are not published in full length. This failure to publish is substantially higher as compared with findings from other medical and biomedical meetings. A further study is needed to explore the reasons for this low publication rate and to compare the fate of SMDM meeting abstracts to those of similar conferences.