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

Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals

BACKGROUND

Studies reporting statistically significant effect estimates tend to be more frequently published compared to studies reporting non-significant or equivalent estimates. Consequently, this may lead to distortion of the literature. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of reporting statistically significant effect estimates in leading oral health journals and to explore associations between the effect estimates and record characteristics.

METHODS

An electronic database search was undertaken of a selection of leading oral health journals including general oral health journals to identify primary oral health records published in 2019. Descriptive statistics and population average GEE logistic regression model was used to assess associations between articles reporting a statistically significant effect estimate and the record characteristics.

RESULTS

In 1335 records, 82.4% records reported a statistically significant effect estimate. All speciality journals compared to general oral health journals were less likely to publish a record with significant effect estimates. Authors based in Asia or other (OR 1.49; 95% CI :1.02,2.19; p = 0.037) were more likely to report significant effect estimates compared to those based in Europe. Interventional (OR 0.35; 0.22,0.58; p < 0.001) and observational (OR 0.56; 0.36, 0.89; p = 0.013) records were less likely to report significant effect estimates compared to in-vitro studies. Registered records were less likely to report significant effect estimates when compared to non-registered studies (OR 0.22; 95% CI :0.14,0.32; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The publishing of records with significant effect estimates is prevalent within the oral health literature. To reduce dissemination bias and overestimation of effect sizes in systematic reviews, the publishing of studies with non-significant or equivalent effect estimates should be encouraged.

Reporting inconsistency between published conference abstracts and article abstracts of randomised controlled trials in prosthodontics presented at IADR general sessions

Background

There is commonly a discrepancy between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may mislead the scholars those attend conferences.

Objective

To identify the characteristics predicting inconsistency between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic RCTs.

Methods

The conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at the IADR general sessions from 2002 to 2015 were searched. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were conducted to match full-text publications for conference abstracts. Two investigators extracted basic characteristics and assessed the consistency and reporting quality independently and in duplicate. The linear regression model was used to analyze the predictors of inconsistency.

Results

A total of 147 conference abstracts were matched with published articles. Results for the secondary outcome measure, Statistical analysis, and precision measure were less than 50% consistent, and even nearly 5% of the studies had opposite conclusions. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that three factors were correlated with lower inconsistency, including continent of origin (p = 0.011), presentation type (p = 0.017), and difference in reporting quality (p = 0.013).

Conclusion

Conference attendees should cautiously treat the findings of the conference abstracts. Researchers should improve the precision of the information delivered at conferences. We recommend the authors of RCTs to explain the primary difference between conference abstracts and article abstracts.

The destiny of an abstract: What predicts publication as a full text journal article?

AIM

The progress of a discipline depends on the knowledge widely shared, an aim fulfilled by publications. But which are the factors influencing publication? We examine predictors of a subsequent publication for abstracts submitted to the annual scientific conference of the German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO).

METHODS

For all 288 abstracts presented in 2014 and 2015 we recorded presentation format, number and gender of authors, study design and university affiliation. Subsequent publication as a peer-reviewed full-text article was researched over a period of more than three years.

RESULTS

A total of 88 abstracts (30.6 %) were published in full-text after a mean time span of 1.2±1.6 years after the respective conference. In multivariate logistic regression, secondary studies (OR 9.27 [1.51-57.04]; p=0.016), a higher number of authors (OR 1.21 [1.02-1.43]; p=0.030), a higher percentage of female authors (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.03]; p=0.036) but male gender of the first author (OR 2.10 [1.11-3.98]; p=0.023) resulted in a higher probability of getting published as a journal paper.

CONCLUSION

Our investigation shows that secondary studies, a higher number of authors, a higher percentage of women among the authors and male first authors are predictive factors of publication. After more than three years, only about one third of the abstracts presented at the DGKFO annual scientific conference have been published as a full-text journal article, meaning that a huge part of knowledge remains unshared.

Dental Research Waste in Design, Analysis, and Reporting: A Scoping Review

Research waste is highly prevalent across biomedical investigations. We aimed to assess the evidence on the extent of research waste in dental research. We performed a scoping review of empirical evaluations of dental studies assessing the prevalence and impact of limitations in design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of research. PubMed was searched using specific terms to retrieve studies dealing with design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of studies in dentistry, with no year or language restrictions. Of the 1,807 publications identified from the search and from manual searches, 71 were included in this review. The topic and article selection was based on the expert opinion of the authors. The existing evidence suggests that, although there are improvements over time, substantial deficiencies in all areas (design, conduct, analysis, reporting) were prevalent in dental research publications. Waste in research is a multifaceted problem without a simple solution. However, an appreciation of optimal research design and execution is a prerequisite and should be underpinned by policies that include appropriate training in research methods and properly aligned incentives.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts presented at a leading international conference in sleep medicine (the SLEEP Annual Meeting), and to investigate the association between potential predictors and the reporting quality of trial abstracts in this field.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, research on research study.

METHODS

A handsearch of the 2016-2018 SLEEP Annual Meeting abstract books was carried out to identify abstracts describing RCTs. Quality of reporting was assessed with the original 17-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. In addition, risk ratios were used to analyse the adequate reporting rate of each quality item by type of intervention and funding status.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The overall quality score (OQS, range 0-17) in accordance with the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (primary outcome), and the adequate reporting rate of each checklist item (secondary outcome).

RESULTS

A total of 176 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OQS was 5.53 (95% CI 5.30 to 5.76). Only three quality items (objective, conclusions and funding) were adequately reported in most abstracts (>75%). None of the abstracts adequately reported authors, randomisation or outcome in the results section. According to the multivariable analysis, pharmacological interventions (p=0.018) and funding from the industry (p=0.025) were significantly associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at SLEEP Annual Meetings was suboptimal. Pharmacological intervention and funding from industry were significant predictors of better reporting quality. Joint efforts by authors and conference committees are needed to enhance the reporting quality of RCT abstracts presented at sleep medicine conferences, and thereby reduce relevant research waste in this field.

Are researchers paying too much for attending dental meetings?

Dental meetings are important venues for sharing knowledge and experiences among researchers and clinicians. The costs for participating in such events, however, are high and have increased over the years. This opinion paper discusses the fairness of such a policy, with high costs for researchers presenting their findings, as well as some suggestions to reduce the economic burden of participants actively involved in presenting their research findings.

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.

Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research

The issue of predatory journals has become increasingly more prevalent over the past decade, as the open-access model of publishing has gained prominence. Although the open-access model is well intentioned to increase accessibility of biomedical research, it is vulnerable to exploitation by those looking to corrupt medical academia and circumvent ethics and research standards. Predatory journals will achieve publication by either soliciting unsuspecting researchers who have legitimate research but fall victim to these predators or researchers looking to quickly publish their research without a thorough review process. Some features of predatory journals are a quick non-peer-review process, falsely listing or exaggerating the credibility of editorial board members, and either lack of or falsification of institutional affiliations and database listings. These predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical research, as they will infect the available literature with unsubstantiated articles, and allow low-quality research. A number of steps can be taken to prevent the spread and increase awareness of predatory publishers, and these must be done to maintain the integrity of medical academia. Clin. Anat. 30:767-773, 2017. © 2017Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Factors affecting peer-reviewed publication of abstracts presented at meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists (2008-2012)

PURPOSE

To review abstracts presented at five consecutive meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists (ECVO), and identify abstract characteristics that affect the probability of their publication in peer-reviewed journals.

METHODS

An online search was conducted for peer-reviewed publications (PRPs) stemming from abstracts from five ECVO meetings (2008-2012). Time to publication and journal were noted. Effects of ocular tissue/discipline, species, type of presentation and study, funding acknowledgment and affiliation, professional qualifications, and nationality of the first and last authors on probability of publication were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of presented abstracts, 29% (87/299) were published as PRPs in Veterinary Ophthalmology (n = 50), other veterinary journals (n = 22), and nonveterinary journals (n = 15). During the 5 years studied, there was no significant difference between the impact factor of Veterinary Ophthalmology and the 25 other journals in which PRPs were published (P = 0.369). Median time to PRP acceptance or publication was 468 days. Independent variables most significant in determining the probability of PRP were oral presentation (P = 0.002), resident authorship (P < 0.0001), and species (P = 0.002), with food animal abstracts having the highest odds ratio. Ocular tissue/discipline (P = 0.13) and type of study (P = 0.33) did not affect publication probability. Funding acknowledgment (P = 0.02), author nationality (P = 0.02), and academic affiliation (P = 0.04) were also significant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication rate of ECVO abstracts is lower, but time to publication is similar, compared with most biomedical meetings.

Timing of publication of abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented in congresses: The example of the European League against Rheumatism meeting

INTRODUCTION

The EUropean League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) congress is an important meeting to present abstracts of research in rheumatology. However, information in these abstracts is insufficient and must be followed and developed in a published article. This study aims to assess to what extent abstracts presented in the EULAR Meeting are published in journals.

METHODS

We identified all abstracts of randomized controlled trials accepted for presentation at the EULAR annual meeting from 2002 to 2011. Using a standardized research, we used Pubmed to find the corresponding publication to each congress abstract. We assessed the cumulative percentage of published abstracts over time and compared the number of included patients, the outcome and the moment of outcome assessment between abstracts presented in congress and in published article.

RESULTS

A total of 1839 abstracts were analyzed. The cumulative probability of abstracts being published in journals was 16.9% (95% CI: 15.2% to 18.6%) at 12 months, 34.3% (95% CI: 32.2% to 36.5%) at 24 months, and 46.5% (95% CI: 44.2% to 48.8%) at 36 months. When evaluable, a difference between the congress and published abstracts was found in 29.0% (247/852). The most frequent difference was a different number of included patients (196/247: 79.4%).

CONCLUSION

More than half of the abstracts of randomized trials were not published three years after they were presented in EULAR meeting. Thirty percent of abstracts were different between their presented and published version.

Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Between May and July 2015, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify corresponding full-text publications; if needed, we contacted abstract authors. Cox regression was performed to estimate associations with full-text publication, where sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were logit transformed, and DOR was log transformed.

RESULTS

A full-text publication was found for 226/399 (57%) included abstracts. There was no association between reported estimates of sensitivity and full-text publication (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.98, 1.22]). The same applied to specificity (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.88, 1.14]), AUC (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.75, 1.09]), and DOR (HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94, 1.09]).

CONCLUSION

Almost half of the ARVO conference abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies did not reach full-text publication. Studies in abstracts that mentioned higher accuracy estimates were not more likely to be reported in a full-text publication.