Abstract presentations by residents at an intramural research day: what factors affect publication?

Improving the Care of Our Patients: Twenty-Three Years of the James Barrett Brown Resident Research Day

BACKGROUND

James Barrett Brown was one of the founders of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery as a specialty in the United States. Susan Mackinnon started the James Barrett Brown Resident Research Day in 1997 in his honor to serve as an annual opportunity for trainees to present their research to the Division and a visiting contemporary leader in plastic surgery. We sought to determine the proportion of Resident Research Day projects that have progressed to publication.

METHODS

Available internal records from 1998 to 2019 were used to identify presenters and projects. Academic productivity of presenters was estimated with the h-index from the Scopus database.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five students, residents, and fellows presented 276 projects at Resident Research Day from 1998 to 2019. These presentations were associated with 144 unique peer-reviewed publications, representing 52% of the presented projects. They were published an average of 1.8 years after presentation, and the presenter was the first or last author on 67% of them. The current average h-index of trainees who published at least 1 project (8.3) is significantly higher than the h-index of those who did not (5.0, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The James Barrett Brown Resident Research Day not only honors the legacy of Brown but also enhances scholarly activity of trainees. The opportunity to present and publish research teaches project planning, implementation, and data analysis, followed by manuscript preparation and the publication process. This important skill set can provide the foundation for the academic careers of future leaders in plastic surgery.

An analysis of publications originating from abstracts presented at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Meeting

BACKGROUND

Research presentation has benefits, including CV building, networking, and collaboration. A measurable standard for achievement is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Expectations regarding the likelihood of publication are unknown for studies presented at a national surgical scientific meeting. This study aims to evaluate predictors of manuscript publication arising from abstracts presented at a national surgical scientific meeting.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Meeting 2019 were reviewed. Identification of published manuscripts was completed using MedLine, Embase, and Google Scholar 28 months after the presentation to allow for time for publication. Factors evaluated for association with publication included author and abstract measures. Descriptive analyses and multivariable statistics were performed.

RESULTS

724 abstracts (160 podiums, 564 posters) were included. Of the podium presentations, 128 (80%) were published in a median of 4 months after the presentation. On univariable and multivariable analyses, there was no association between publication and abstract topic, gender, degree, number of publications, or H-indices of first and senior authors. 154 (27.3%) poster presentations were published with a median of 13 months. On univariable analysis, there was a statistically significant difference regarding the abstract topic (p = 0.015) and senior author degree (p = 0.01) between published and unpublished posters. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that colorectal surgery (OR 2.52; CI 1.02-6.23) and metabolic/obesity (OR 2.53; CI 1.09-5.84) are associated with an increased odd of publication. There was an inverse association with female senior authors (OR 0.53; CI 0.29-0.98), while additional degrees (e.g., doctorate and/or master's degree) of the senior authors were associated with an increased publication rate (OR 1.80; CI 1.00-3.22).

CONCLUSION

80% of podiums but only 27% of posters were ultimately published. While some predictors of poster publication were noted, it is unclear if these are why these projects fail to publish. Future research is warranted to determine if there are effective strategies to increase poster publication rates.

Presentation at the Canadian Association of Radiologists Annual General Meeting Is Associated With Higher Likelihood of Publication of Canadian Radiology Resident Research Day Presentations

Objective: Determine how many radiology resident research day projects are presented at the Canadian Association of Radiologists Annual Scientific Meeting (CAR ASM) and if presentation at the CAR ASM is associated with increased rates of publication. Methods: A database of radiology resident presentations from 2012 to 2017 research days at seven Canadian radiology programs was utilized. Each presenting resident was searched for in 2011-2019 CAR ASM books of abstracts to identify all CAR ASM presentations both related to and separate from their research day projects. These presentations were matched with resident research day presentations and their publication status. Descriptive statistical analysis and calculation of relative risk (RR) between publication of research day projects and presentation at CAR was performed. Results: 208 residents presented 288 projects at internal research days. 93 of the 208 residents had a total of 195 presentations at CAR (mean .94 +/- 1.91 SD). 36 of the 288 (13%) research day projects were presented at a CAR ASM, of which 18/36 (50%) were published. 83 of the 252 (32%) research day projects not presented at CAR were published. CAR ASM presentation of a research day project was associated with an increased rate of publication (RR 1.537 P=.0396). There was no significant association between research day project publication and unrelated CAR ASM presentations (P=.275). Most research day projects both presented at CAR ASM and published (56%) were in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. Conclusion: CAR ASM presentation of research day projects is associated with an increased rate of publication.

Determinants of research productivity during postgraduate medical education: a structured review

BACKGROUND

Although formal participation in research is an integral and often mandatory component of clinical training programs, resulting productivity is highly variable. The objective of this review was to identify determinants of successful research performance among graduate medical education trainees.

METHODS

A structured review of the published literature was performed by searching PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception through to 7 April, 2021. Articles examining graduate medical education trainee research productivity evidenced by publications in peer-reviewed journals were included.

RESULTS

Eighty-five articles were included of which most (66; 78%) were reported from the USA or Canada (10; 12%). A wide range of disciplines were represented with the most common being general surgery, internal medicine, orthopedic surgery, and pediatrics. Themes (number of reports) included trainee characteristics (n = 24), project characteristics (n = 8), mentoring/supervision (n = 11), and programmatic aspects (n = 57). Although variable results were observed, research productivity tended to be higher with prior research experience, later years of training, male gender, and pursuit of a postgraduate degree. Few project related aspects of success were identified. Trainee publication was associated with mentors with higher rank, publication productivity, and supportive academic environments. Training programs with organised programs/curricula including protection of time for research were associated with increased productivity as were provision of incentives or rewards but not mandatory requirements.

CONCLUSION

This review identifies several trainee characteristics, project and mentor aspects, and programmatic aspects associated with increased productivity that may serve as a useful resource for trainees and graduate medical education training programs.

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.

Rate and Predictors of Publication of Resident Abstracts Presented at Oman Medical Specialty Board Scientific Meetings

Objectives

This study aimed to examine the rate and factors associated with the publication of abstracts presented by residents at Oman Medical Specialty Board (OMSB) scientific meetings.

Methods

This retrospective study was performed in February 2018. Two previous national OMSB scientific meetings at which resident abstracts were presented were identified, having taken place in January 2014 and December 2016, respectively. Independent searches of the MEDLINE^® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USA) and Google Scholar (Google LLC, Menlo Park, California, USA) databases were conducted to determine subsequent publication of the abstracts.

Results

A total of 68 resident abstracts were presented, of which most were clinical research (92.6%). Residents comprised 36.4% of the authors, of which 73.1% were senior residents. In 64 abstracts (94.1%), a resident was the first author. Overall, 15 abstracts (22.1%) resulted in articles published in 11 journals. Of these, 12 (80%) represented clinical research and 10 articles (66.7%) were published in MEDLINE^®-indexed journals. Residents were the first authors of eight articles (53.3%). The median time to publication was 19 months. The presence of two or more resident authors per abstract was significantly associated with publication (odds ratio = 5.50, 95% confidence interval = 1.15-26.36; P = 0.03).

Conclusion

The publication rate of resident abstracts presented at two OMSB research meetings was low; however, a higher number of resident authors per abstract significantly increased the likelihood of publication. These findings may influence policymakers to implement measures to support inter-resident collaboration so as to increase research productivity.

The Impact of Pediatric Surgical Specialty Meetings: A 5-year Analysis of Presented Abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Surgery (AAP) and American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) meetings can be taken as a reasonable representation of academic activity in pediatric surgery. We sought to assess ongoing trends in pediatric surgical research by analyzing the scientific content of each association's yearly meeting.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at AAP and APSA between 2009 and 2013 were identified from the final printed programs (n = 910). Video abstracts (n = 34) were excluded. Collected data included title, authors, classification (basic science/clinical), presentation type (podium/poster), and topic. Publication as a journal article was determined using the abstract title/authors in a PubMed search. Journal impact factors were recorded for each journal and a composite impact factor (CIF) was calculated by dividing the sum of impact factors by the published articles per meeting.

RESULTS

Number of abstracts presented, percentage published, abstract classifications, and presentation type remained consistent over the study period. The AAP meetings accepted a higher percentage of clinical abstracts: AAP 72.3 ± 3.4% versus APSA 65.9 ± 1.3%. The five most popular topics at both meetings were oncology, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, necrotizing enterocolitis, trauma, and appendicitis. The publication rate for clinical and basic science abstracts did not vary significantly over the study period, whereas CIFs were higher for basic science publications nearly every year. The percentage of podium abstracts published was significantly greater than poster abstracts, but no statistical difference in CIF was seen between podium- and poster-associated publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Abstracts accepted and presented at the two major pediatric surgical specialty meetings more commonly involve clinical studies with a trend away from basic science. Despite this, basic science abstracts tended to be published in higher impact journals. This study attempts to quantify the quality of pediatric surgical research and serves as a baseline for future comparison.

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.

What Factors Influence Resident Research Publication in the Division of Plastic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Less than half of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences are published in peer-reviewed journals. The publication rate of these abstracts and factors influencing their publication warrants investigation to optimize knowledge dissemination.

PURPOSE

To determine publication rates of abstracts published at the University of Toronto, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Annual Research Symposium. Following, to explore the barriers and facilitators of publication rate through a focus group with senior residents.

METHODS

PubMed, MedLine, and Scopus were searched to determine the successful publication rate of abstracts published in the University of Toronto Research Symposium Program in a 9-year period. Multiple logistical regression analysis was undertaken to discern factors associated with publication. Thematic analysis of a focus group with plastic surgery residents was undertaken to further explore the barriers and facilitators of publication.

RESULTS

Of 126 abstracts presented, 39.7% were published as peer-reviewed articles. The association between abstract topic, type (basic science or clinical), presenting author rank, faculty investigator rank, or publication rate were not statistically significant. Faculty investigator affiliated site was statistically significantly associated with publication. Six major themes arose from the qualitative analysis: quality of research question, faculty investigator attributes, availability of supports, research program expectations, time factors, and collaboration between residents. These results implicate variables that influence quantitatively determined publication rates and point to implementation of changes that may improve resident research experience and productivity in Plastic Surgery.