Factors associated with the full publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association

The fate of the abstract: presentation and publication characteristics of abstracts presented at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Annual Scientific Meetings 2013-2020

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate what proportion of abstracts presented at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) Annual Scientific Meetings went on to be published in publicly available journals.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study SETTING: Single organization PARTICIPANTS: Abstracts (oral presentations, oral posters, video presentations, non-oral posters) presented at the SGS Annual Scientific Meeting from 2013-2020 INTERVENTIONS: Variables were collected pertaining to abstract authors, study type, timing of the session presented, and journal factors. To identify possible publication, abstracts were cross-referenced in PubMed and Google Scholar.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 912 abstracts were reviewed: 155 oral presentations, 184 oral posters, 79 video presentations, and 490 non-oral posters. 45.8% of abstracts went on to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Most abstracts (75.0%) were published from institutions with a fellowship presence and at a university-based program (71.5%). The five most represented institutions presented 27.5% of all abstracts during an SGS session. Oral presentations were more likely than oral posters to be structured as randomized controlled trials (20% vs 9%, p=.028), and to be published in a journal with a higher impact factor (6.36 ± 11.74 vs. 3.88 ± 2.72, p=.031). Type of presentation and fellowship presence significantly affected the likelihood of abstract publication (oral presentation OR 0.73, 95% CI [0.466, 1.141], p=0.167; video OR 0.14, 95% CI [0.075, 0.261; non-oral poster OR 0.30, 95% CI [0.204, 0.439]; p<.001; fellowship OR 1.62, 95% CI [1.167, 2.237], p=.004).

CONCLUSION

Over eight years of the SGS Annual Scientific Meeting, the rate of abstract publication was 45.8%. Abstract origination from an academic institution with a fellowship program significantly affected the likelihood of publication. Abstract presentation at a society meeting is a prestigious opportunity, and prioritization of resources and elimination of barriers should be encouraged to further promote progression of these projects to publication.

Bibliometric analysis and conversion rate of abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology into publication of full articles

INTRODUCTION

the presentation of research at a congress is an interesting means for scientific dissemination, but only with publication in an indexed journal does the data become accessible and disseminated. The conversion rate in published articles of abstracts presented at congresses is an indicator to assess the scientific quality of those events. The aim of this study is to evaluate bibliometric characteristics of abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology and to determine the factors that affect publication rates.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of all abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congresses of Coloproctology from 2015 to 2019. Multiple databases were analyzed to estimate the conversion rate of the presented papers, as well as variables associated with the conversion of abstracts into full manuscripts through bivariate analysis and multivariate variables of these predictors.

RESULTS

1756 abstracts were analyzed. Most studies are retrospective, series or case reports, and even personal experience. The conversion rate was 6.9%. The presence of statistical analysis was twice as high for published abstracts as for unpublished ones.

CONCLUSION

the data presented demonstrate a low scientific productivity of the specialty, since the research carried out is, for the most part, not published as complete manuscripts. The predictors of publication of abstracts were: multicenter studies, studies with statistical analysis, study designs with a higher level of evidence and studies awarded by the congress.

The publication rate of oral presentations presented in national congresses of Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery

Background

This study aims to investigate the literature contribution of oral presentations presented in the largest national congresses of the Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery.

Methods

A total of 675 orally presented abstracts during biannually organized 12^th, 13^th, and 14^th congresses were reviewed using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases in May 2018. Abstracts were searched for institutions where they were submitted, publication status in scientific journals, type of peer-reviewed journal, and publication year.

Results

Of a total of 675 oral presentations, 69.1% were clinical studies, 18.8% were case reports, and 12.1% were experimental researches. Of all accepted abstracts, 47.3% were from university hospitals, 36.1% were from training and research hospitals, and 16.6% were from other multi-center institutions. A total of 279 (41.3%) abstracts were published in a scientific journal. There was a significant difference among the institutions in terms of the rate of publication (p=0.04), and the university hospitals had the highest rate. The mean time from presentation to publication in a scientific journal was 16.7±9.1 (range, 4 to 60) months.

Conclusion

The rate of published abstracts from the last three congresses of the Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery is higher compared to the literature results reporting national congresses of other specialties, but is lower than the international congresses. We believe that this ratio should be increased to reach the same level as international reports and the methods to encourage researchers to publish should be developed.

Characteristics and Fate of Abstracts Presented at American Academy of Ophthalmology Meetings

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the characteristics and publication outcomes of abstracts presented in American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) meetings.

SUBJECT AND METHODS

Abstracts from AAO meetings for the years 2012 and 2013 were evaluated from the meeting archives. The study characteristics were recorded for each abstract. Each abstract was assessed for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal using three search engines (PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar). Time to publication was also calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 929 abstracts presented to 2 AAO meetings were analyzed. Among subspecialty areas, retina represented the largest percentage of accepted meeting abstracts (33.3%) followed by cornea (21.9%), cataract (14.9%), and glaucoma (14.4%). A total of 304 abstracts (32.7%) were published in peer-reviewed journals as full-length articles. The median time to publication was 40 months, and the median impact factor of the journal for the published manuscript was 1.9. In multivariable models, topics related to glaucoma were most likely to be published followed by retina. The odds for publication were higher if the first author was affiliated with a residency program, and if the first author originated from South Korea and the United States.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study presents the landscape of publication outcomes for abstracts presented in national AAO meetings with ~1/3 of presented abstracts culminated in publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

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.

Conversion of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscripts: a brazilian perspective

Objective

to assess the conversion rate of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscript publications and examine factors associated with this conversion.

Methods

we assessed the abstracts presented at the 47th and 48th Brazilian Congresses of Plastic Surgery by cross-referencing with multiple databases. We analyzed the Abstracts' characteristics associated with full manuscript publications.

Results

of the 200 abstracts presented, 50 abstracts were subsequently published in full, giving the conference a conversion rate of 25%. The mean time to publish was 15.00±13.75 months. In total, there were 4.93±1.63 authors per abstract and 67.8±163 subjects per abstract; 43.5% of the abstracts were of retrospective studies; 69% comprised the plastic surgery topics head and neck, and chest and trunk, and 88.5% had no statistical analysis. Overall, 80% of the manuscripts were published in plastic surgery journals, 76% had no impact factor and 52% had no citations. Bivariate and multivariate analyses revealed the presence of statistical analysis to be the most significant (p<0.05) predictive factor of conversion of abstracts into full manuscripts.

Conclusion

the conversion rate found from this bibliometric research appeared a bit lower than the conversion trend of international plastic surgery meetings, and statistical analysis was a determinant of conversion success.

Understanding and Appraising Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis seek to answer a pre-framed research question to lead to a valid answer through a systematic, explicit and reproducible method of locating; identifying, including and appraising appropriate trials. The results are synthesized considering the methodological rigor of included trials. While the meta-analysis quantitatively pools the results from individual included studies, the systematic review summarizes the findings as qualitative conclusions. These reviews are crux of evidence based dentistry for various stake-holders, i.e., clinicians, researchers and policy-makers. Although the meticulous methodology of systematic review and meta-analysis minimizes the elements of bias, yet the validity and reliability of their findings should be explored prior to translating their conclusions to practice. The goal of this paper is to familiarize readers with rationale, conduct and appraisal of systematic review and meta-analysis. Further, guidance is provided on tracing potential elements of bias in the review to enable readers to judge the quality of evidence generated from the review.

Predictors of Manuscript Publication: A Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology Society Meeting Abstracts

OBJECTIVE

The authors attempted to understand the manuscript publication rate and predictors of publication of abstracts presented at obstetrical and gynecologic society meetings.

METHODS

In 2013, the authors obtained the text of all 2005 abstracts presented at a major generalist- and fellowship-associated society meetings. In this cross-sectional study, a search was completed for publication and identified possible predictors.

RESULTS

The authors examined 1405 abstracts; the overall full-text publication rate was 54% (755/1405 publications) and the mean (SD) time to publication was 25.6 (20.8) months. Variables associated with publication in multivariable analysis included number of abstract authors (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.2), first authorship in American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists district IV (OR, 1.7; CI, 0.9-3.1), prospective design (OR, 1.7; CI, 0.9-3.1), multicenter design (OR, 2.5; CI, 1.3-4.9), and oral presentation (OR, 3.2; CI, 1.4-7.3). Abstracts from specialty meetings were more likely to have these characteristics and, thus, higher publication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study can guide project development for young researchers by informing them of key study design features associated with manuscript publication.

Analysis of full-text publication and publishing predictors of abstracts presented at an Italian public health meeting (2005-2007)

Background

In Public Health, a thorough review of abstract quality evaluations and the publication history of studies presented at scientific meetings has never been conducted. To analyse the long-term outcome of quality abstracts submitted to conferences of Italian Society of Hygiene and Public Health (SItI) from 2005 to 2007, we conducted a second analysis of previously published material aiming to estimate full-text publication rate of high quality abstract presented at Italian public health meetings, and to identify predictors of full-text publication.

Methods

The search was undertaken through scientific databases and search engines and through the web sites of the major Italian journals of Public Health. For each publication confirmed as a full text paper, the journal name, impact factor, year of publication, gender of the first author, type of study design, characteristics of the results and sample size were collected.

Results

The overall publication rate of the abstracts presented is 23.5 %; most of the papers were published in Public Health journals (average impact factor: 3.007). Non universitary affiliation had resulted in a lower probability of publication, while some of the Conference topics had predisposed the studies to an increased likelihood of publication as well as poster form presentation.

Conclusions

The method presented in this study provides a good framework for the evaluation of the scientific evidence. The findings achieved should be taken into consideration by the Scientific Societies during the contributions selection phase, with the aim of achieving a continuous improvement of work quality. In the future, it would be interesting to survey the abstract authors to identify reasons for unpublished data.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of conversion of scientific abstracts presented at an intramural resident research day to published articles and identify the factors associated with successful conversion.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Department of Plastic Surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Evaluation of 78 abstracts presented by plastic surgery residents as part of an intramural research day over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 78 abstracts were presented by residents over the study period. Most abstracts (49, 63%) were presented by senior residents (postgraduate year ≥4). Fifty-six abstracts (72%) were clinical studies. The majority (54, 69%) of primary investigators had an academic rank of associate professor or professor. Fifty abstracts (64%) were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. The mean time to publication was 15.6 ± 13.6 months. In a logistic regression model, abstract conversion was inversely associated with increasing postgraduate year (odds ratio = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36-0.85, p = 0.007) and directly associated with primary investigator academic rank (odds ratio = 3.3, 95% CI: 1.1-10.5, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

The conversion rate of abstracts to published articles from an intramural resident research day is >50% and is associated with increased time until graduation and primary investigator academic rank. These results suggest that research exposure early in surgical training and experienced mentorship are key elements to successful education in surgical research.

Brazilian abstracts presented at the American Urological Association annual meetings: contribution, publication rates, and comparison with oncology abstracts

PURPOSE

Scientific research originating from Brazil appears to be rising in several medical fields. Research results are often presented at scientific meetings before publication in peer-reviewed journals. We investigated the publication rate of Brazilian studies presented in American Urological Association (AUA) meetings and compared with the rate of publication of Brazilian oncological studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meetings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

a hand search of 12,454 abstracts presented at aua meetings 2001-2007 was conducted. abstracts for which at least two-thirds of institutions were from brazil were considered as brazilian. final publication was searched in pubmed and lilacs databases. oncological abstracts were also hand searched in the asco meetings proceedings in the same years.

RESULTS

There was no significant temporal trend in the proportion of AUA studies originating from Brazil along those 7 years. A total of 195 abstracts (1.57%) were from Brazil. One hundred (51.3%) abstracts were published in full, and the estimated 5-year publication rate was 48.2%. There was a progressive increase in publication rates for studies categorized as video, poster, and podium presentations. Considering abstracts presented in years 2001-2005, urologic publication rate was significantly higher than for abstracts presented at the ASCO meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the Brazilian contribution to AUA meetings is at a plateau and that the Brazilian literature contribution is greater in urology than in oncology. Efforts must be invested towards raising this plateau and understanding qualitative aspects of the urology scientific output from Brazil.

Analysis of subsequent publication of scientific orally presented abstracts of the French national congress of radiology. Part I: General characteristics

PURPOSE

To evaluate the publication rate of scientific abstracts orally presented at the annual meeting of the French Society of Radiology (FSR), and to identify factors associated with publication.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Abstracts were selected from the books of abstracts of the 2008-2010 annual meetings of the FSR. For each abstract, country of origin, diagnostic/interventional radiology, imaging techniques (plain radiography, angiography, ultrasound [US], computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), human/experimental study, retrospective/prospective design, number of subjects, oncologic study or not were noted. Publications were searched in Medline-indexed journals and factors associated analyzed by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and forty-four abstracts lead to 298 publications (publication rate 40%). Most abstracts reported retrospective studies (61%), in humans (94%), diagnostic imaging (85%), from European authors (90%), and oncology (27%). Median number of subject was 39 (19-87). Main imaging techniques were MRI, CT, US (46%, 29%, 21%). Publications were mostly in English (89%), in radiological journals (72%), with a mean 3.5±3.7 impact factor. Publication was associated with a prospective design (OR=1.80), a submission from Europe (OR=1.71), angiography (OR=2.44), and oncology (OR=1.81).

CONCLUSION

The annual meeting of the FSR is in French, but the rate of publication of presented abstracts is high, mostly in English in reputable journals.

Abstracts presented at the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) meetings (2003-2010): characteristics and outcome

OBJECTIVE

To determine the characteristics and outcome of abstracts presented to the meetings of the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Abstract books from 2003 to 2010 were reviewed and subsequent publication of presented abstracts determined by MEDLINE/PubMed search.

RESULTS

Of 1194 abstracts, 50-78% per year originated from 15 to 20 European countries and 50-22% from 8 to 13 non-European countries; 233 (19%) were basic science and 961 (81%) clinical. Clinical abstracts included 135 (14%) multicenter/prospective/randomized trials. These figures did not change significantly over time. A total of 564 (47%) abstracts were subsequently published, 65% within 1 year of the meeting, mostly in the Journal of Urology (33%) and the Journal of Pediatric Urology (21%). Multicenter/prospective/randomized trials studies (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.37-2.96) and abstracts originating from outside Europe (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.26-2.05) were significantly more likely to be subsequently published in full.

CONCLUSION

The ESPU meetings are a true occasion for international exchange of scientific endeavors. Almost half of the abstracts are subsequently published. The Journal of Urology and the Journal of Pediatric Urology are consistently the two major target journals for publication. Non-European countries, irrespective of whether English-speaking or not, seem significantly more likely to publish their abstracts.

Funding Anatomic Pathology Research: A Retrospective Analysis of an Intramural Funding Mechanism

Context.—In 2006, the department of pathology at our institution established an intramural research funding mechanism to support anatomic pathology research projects for faculty and trainee development. A review committee consisting of faculty members with diverse academic interests evaluated applications; proposals were eligible for a maximum award amount of $30 000 per project with a maximum program cost of $150 000 annually.

Objective.—To report our experience based on a retrospective review of the research proposals submitted to the committee since the inception of the Anatomic Pathology Research Fund and evaluate the outcomes of the funded projects.

Design.—We retrospectively analyzed all project applications that were received by the committee. Outcome data were collected by reviewing progress reports, abstracts for national and international meetings, PubMed search results, and/or direct communication with investigators.

Results.—To date, a total of 59 individual projects have been awarded funding, for a total amount of $349 792, with an average award amount of $5381 per project. A total of 26 faculty members have secured funding for projects through this mechanism, and 27 resident and fellow trainees have been engaged in the funded projects. Spanning 11 subspecialty disciplines in anatomic pathology, 32 abstracts (54%) have been presented at national meetings and 26 (44%) have been published in the peer-reviewed literature to date. One project generated data used to secure an extramural (R01) grant.

Conclusions.—Our funding mechanism could serve as a model used by other academic departments to support research activities, thereby fostering faculty development through scholarly activities.

Analysis of publication status of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the korean academy of rehabilitation medicine

Objective

To analyze publication rate, time to publication and the characteristics of the abstracts presented at the annual Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (KARM) meetings.

Methods

A total of 1,027 abstracts presented at the 2008 and 2009 annual KARM meetings were enrolled in the database and searched for their subsequent citation in PubMed, KoreaMed, and Google Scholar.

Results

The data analysis revealed that 317 (30.87%) abstracts, were published as full-length journal articles and publication rates by subject were not significantly different. The mean time to publication was 17.17±10.48 months, and the journals written in English (20.39±10.20) required a longer duration than those written in Korean (11.94±8.44) with statistical significance (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference (p=0.284) in the duration between domestic (17.61±10.37) and foreign (16.48±10.51) of the 220 domestic journal articles, 190 (86.76%) were published in the Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine and the 97 articles published in foreign journals were scattered over 60 different journals.

Conclusion

The publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2008 and 2009 annual KARM meetings was 30.87% and the mean time to publication was 17.17±10.48 months.

Factors predicting publication of sexual medicine abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association

INTRODUCTION

At sexual medicine meetings throughout the world, hundreds of scientific abstracts are presented each year. To our knowledge, no previous studies have looked at the rate of publication of these studies in a peer-reviewed journal.

AIM

To define the fate of abstracts presented at sexual medicine sessions at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) and to describe the factors predicting ultimate publication in scientific journals.

METHODS

All abstracts presented at the 2006 and 2007 AUA annual meeting were surveyed to find sexual medicine abstracts. Publication status as of October 2009 was assessed using the Medline database. Abstract parameters were recorded including number of authors, country of origin, clinical or basic research, and area of sexual research. Predictors of publication were analyzed using a multivariable model.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Publication status of all sexual medicine abstracts presented at the 2006 and 2007 AUA annual meetings.

RESULTS

A total of 208 sexual medicine abstracts were presented in 2006 and 2007. Fifty-one percent of these were published by October 2009. On univariate analysis, the predictors of publication in a peer-reviewed journal included the number of authors (r=0.22, P<0.01), studies pertaining to erectile dysfunction (RR 1.3, CI 1-1.8, P=0.05), and studies originating from academic centers (RR 2.7, CI 1.7-4.3, P<0.01). On multivariate analysis, the predictors of publication included the number of authors (OR 1.3, CI 1-1.4, P<0.01) and having a study originate from an academic center (OR 5.9, CI 2.8-12.7, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Fifty-one percent of the sexual medicine abstracts presented at the 2006 and 2007 annual AUA meetings have been published within 2 to 3 years of the date of presentation. Studies originating from academic centers were six times more likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Scientific impact of Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons plenary session abstracts increases in the era of the Academic Surgical Congress from 2006 to 2010

BACKGROUND

The objective of our study was to analyze plenary abstracts since 2006, when the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS) and Society of University Surgeons (SUS) began hosting the combined annual Academic Surgical Congress (ASC). Plenary session abstracts from the separate AAS and SUS meetings from 2002 to 2004 had previously revealed no significant difference in the scientific impact of published manuscripts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 76 abstracts from the AAS (n = 40) and SUS (n = 36) plenary sessions at the annual ASC meetings (2006-2010) were reviewed. Publication rate, citation number, 2010 impact factor (IF), and 5-y IF were obtained. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact and Student t-tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 (79%) of 76 ASC plenary abstracts presented between 2006 and 2010 were published in peer-reviewed journals. Analysis revealed a higher publication rate for AAS (90%) compared with SUS (67%) plenary abstracts (P = 0.02). Among the articles published, the overall mean number of total citations was 6.7, with no difference between AAS and SUS (5.9 versus 7.8, P = 0.46). The mean 2010 five-year IF for all publications was 4.6 (AAS, 4.3 versus SUS, 5.0; P = 0.54). Compared with a previous analysis from the separate meetings, the mean IF has increased for both societies at an equivalent rate of 0.4.

CONCLUSIONS

After the initiation of the joint ASC meeting in 2006, the SUS and AAS plenary presentations continue to exhibit high-quality research. This study supports the benefit of a joint meeting for the AAS and SUS, as it has been associated with an increasing overall scientific impact for plenary abstracts.

Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based clinical practice

Introduction:

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of well-designed and executed randomized controlled trials have the potential to provide the highest levels of evidence to support diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in urology.

Materials and Methods:

The role of systematic reviews in the urological literature is described. A three-step appraisal of the validity, magnitude and applicability of results will permit an evidence-based approach to incorporating findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses into practice.

Results:

The validity of systematic reviews depends on a focused clinical question that generates specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for identifying studies through an exhaustive literature search. The primary studies must be of high methodological quality and assessments should be reproducible. Informed consumers of the urological literature should be aware of the consistency of results between trials in a review, as well as the magnitude and precision of the best estimate of the treatment effects. When making decisions about implementing the results, urologists should consider all patient-important outcomes, the overall quality of the evidence and the balance between benefits, potential harms and costs.

Conclusion:

This framework will lead to a more evidence-based application of systematic reviews within the urological literature. Ideally, utilization of an evidence-based approach to systematic reviews will improve the quality of urological patient care.

Analysis of duplicate presentations accepted at two top international pediatric urology meetings

OBJECTIVE

Meetings of the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are held annually to promote dissemination of new research findings among practitioners. We conducted an observational study determining the rate of duplicate research presentations at the two meetings.

METHODS

A systematic, in-year, cross reference analysis of all clinical and basic research presentations at the ESPU and AAP meetings, for the years 2006-2009, was conducted. The search strategy included abstract title, authorship, country of origin, institution, study design, significance, and sample size. Three reviewers independently abstracted all data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

In total, 566 abstracts were presented at the four ESPU meetings. Of these, 23 (4.1%) were also presented at an AAP meeting: 2 of 137 (1.5%) were represented in 2006, 6 of 139 (4.3%) in 2007, 6 of 126 (4.8%) in 2008, and 9 of 164 (5.5%) in 2009. Duplicate presentations were altered by changing the title (57%), adding or removing authors (48%), or changing authorship order (63%) or sample size (22%). Agreement between reviewers was above 90% (kappa = 0.913).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was only a 4% duplicate presentation rate between the studied ESPU and AAP meetings, our results suggest a trend toward increasing duplication over the past 4 years.

Fate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the korean urological association

Purpose

The acceptance rate for journal publication of the abstracts presented at the annual Korean Urological Association (KUA) meeting, the time to publication, and the effect of abstract characteristics on the publication pattern were analyzed and compared with data for abstracts from other major urological meetings.

Materials and Methods

A total of 1,005 abstracts listed in the abstract books of the 2006 (58th) and 2007 (59th) annual KUA meetings were analyzed, and their subsequent publication as listed in PubMed or KoreaMed between August 2006 and August 2011 was evaluated.

Results

A total of 41.59% of abstracts were published as full-length reports. Abstracts on sexual dysfunction, neurourology, prostate cancer, basic research, and benign prostatic hyperplasia showed the highest publication rates (54%, 52.27%, 48%, 47.56%, and 45%, respectively). It took 19.01±12.83 months on average for abstracts to be published in a journal, whereas it took 25.24±14.64 months and 17.51±11.89 months for publication in foreign and Korean journals, respectively (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Approximately 40% of studies presented as abstracts at the KUA meeting are subsequently published as full-length articles. The KJU is the most targeted journal. The mean time to publication is 1.5 years, and publication seems to be influenced by the study subject.

Conversion rates of abstracts presented at the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) Annual Scientific Meeting into full-text journal articles

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? It is well known that the transition of a presented abstract in a scientific meeting to a journal article improves the quality of the meeting and prevents an abstract being incorporated into meta-analyses or practice guidelines without proper appraisal. This is the first analysis of USANZ Annual Scientific Meeting abstracts' conversion to full publication. With relatively low publication rates compared to other international meetings, this review identifies the need for mechanisms to encourage USANZ researchers to convert their abstracts into published articles. The numbers and characteristics of the abstracts presented at the Annual Scientific Meetings (ASM) of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) that are converted to peer-reviewed publications have not previously been analysed and published. We undertook a review of all abstracts presented at the USANZ ASM from 2005 to 2009. A PubMed search was performed between 15 June and 15 July 2012, using a search algorithm to identify the full-text publications of the presented abstracts. Correlation between abstract characteristics and publication rate was then examined to distinguish the predictors for publications. Of 614 abstracts that were presented at USANZ ASM between 2005 and 2009, 183 papers were published, giving a publication rate of 29.80%. The papers were predominantly published in urological journals and were more likely to be published if they were presented by an international author or were retrospective studies or if basic science research. The mean (SD) time to publication was 14.46 (13.89) months and the mean Impact Factor of journals where papers were published was 2.90. The overall publication rate was relatively low compared with other urological meetings held in America and Europe. USANZ has a challenge of encouraging higher-quality research from the authors to further enhance its publication rate and consequently the calibre of the meeting itself.

Statistics: The stethoscope of a thinking urologist

Understanding statistical terminology and the ability to appraise clinical research findings and statistical tests are critical to the practice of evidence-based medicine. Urologists require statistics in their toolbox of skills in order to successfully sift through increasingly complex studies and realize the drawbacks of statistical tests. Currently, the level of evidence in urology literature is low and the majority of research abstracts published for the American Urological Association (AUA) meetings lag behind for full-text publication because of a lack of statistical reporting. Underlying these issues is a distinct deficiency in solid comprehension of statistics in the literature and a discomfort with the application of statistics for clinical decision-making. This review examines the plight of statistics in urology and investigates the reason behind the white-coat aversion to biostatistics. Resources such as evidence-based medicine websites, primers in statistics, and guidelines for statistical reporting exist for quick reference by urologists. Ultimately, educators should take charge of monitoring statistical knowledge among trainees by bolstering competency requirements and creating sustained opportunities for statistics and methodology exposure.

Knowledge dissemination resulting from the Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Association annual scientific meetings

BACKGROUND

Publication of scientific work presented at national conferences underpins knowledge translation. However, no such data exists for cardiac rehabilitation abstracts presented at Australian conferences. We reviewed a series of conferences to determine the number of abstracts that resulted in subsequent full publication.

METHODS

Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Association (ACRA) Conference Proceedings for 2003-2007 were searched for oral and poster author details and abstract titles were searched in multiple databases for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and the results summarised.

RESULTS

In total, 279 abstracts were presented at the five conferences, of which 186 were podium, 83 poster and 10 moderated poster presentations. The majority (42%) of abstracts were from Victoria (n=116), and were dominated by presentations from registered nurses (38%; n=107). Only 17 (9%) were subsequently published as full manuscripts in scientific journals with impact factors ranging from 0.55 to 7.92. The mean time from presentation to complete manuscript publication was 19±21.6 months. The median citation rate of the publications was 2.0 (range 0-12).

CONCLUSIONS

Most abstracts presented at the ACRA scientific meetings were not published as manuscripts in journals. Failure to publish comprises research principles and progress healthcare. There is an urgent need to investigate the reasons for the low publication rates and develop effective strategies to redress the imbalance.

Reporting quality and information consistency of randomized, controlled trials presented as abstracts at the American Urological Association annual meetings

PURPOSE

We assessed the quality of randomized, controlled trial reporting in abstracts from the annual meetings of the American Urological Association and determined whether the information provided is consistent with subsequent full text publications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form at the 2002 and 2003 American Urological Association annual meetings were identified for review. A systematic PubMed search based on authorship and key words from the study title was done to identify all subsequent full text publications. A standardized evaluation form was developed based on the published literature, pilot tested in a separate sample and applied by 2 independent reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 126 randomized, controlled trials were identified for review, including 56 in 2002 and 70 in 2003. Approximately a third of the trials (43 or 34.1%) identified the study design as a randomized, controlled trial in the abstract title. The method of randomization, allocation concealment and blinding was reported in 0% (0), 0% (0) and 40.5% (51) of studies, respectively. Mean/median followup was provided in 27.0% of studies (34). Of 126 randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form 62.7% (79) were subsequently published as full text articles. Study sample size and the number of randomized subjects differed in 24.1% and 28.9% of abstracts, respectively. From the small proportion of randomized, controlled trials (23 or 29.1%) that identified a single primary end point results differed in 9 of 23 (39.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most abstracts fail to provide the necessary information to assess methodological quality. Organizers of urological meetings should consider implementing a more structured abstract format that requires authors to provide the necessary study details, thereby allowing urologists to critically appraise study validity.

The outcome of abstracts presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meetings

Many abstracts presented at scientific meetings are never published as articles in peer-reviewed journals. Using PubMed search and custom computer programs, we retrospectively reviewed all 4824 abstracts presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meetings from 2005 to 2007, and found an overall publication rate of 36% for a 3-year maximal follow-up. This rate is comparable with that of other medical societies with published data. The publication rate varied from 10 to 62% among different subspecialties. The format of presentation, either platform or poster, was also a significant predictor of outcome, with 42-50% publication rate for platform abstracts and 32-36% for poster abstracts. Country of origin and the use of statistical methods did not seem to affect outcome significantly. The average time from abstract submission to article publication was 18 months. Seven journals accounted for over half of all publications, and the top three journals were American Journal of Surgical Pathology (16.2%), Modern Pathology (9.1%), and American Journal of Clinical Pathology (8.3%).

The fate of conference abstracts: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement

OBJECTIVE

From the literature search for a government-commissioned systematic review on surgical treatments for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE), we identified the relevant conference abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which failed to reach full publication and their data were not utilised. We aimed to ascertain, first, the reasons of failure to reach full publication and second, to estimate the impact of including the abstracts' data.

DESIGN

A two-part study, consisting of a questionnaire survey and a sensitivity analysis of the above said review.

METHODS

An ad hoc questionnaire was sent to each author of the relevant abstracts, as to determine the reasons of failure to reach full publication. The data from the abstracts were then extracted and incorporated into sensitivity analysis of the review.

RESULTS

Forty-seven questionnaires were completed for 47 abstracts. Of these abstracts, 32 of them were claimed to have reached full publication. A number of reasons of failure to reach full publication were identified, for example: 'being written up' and 'lack of time'. Utilizable, relevant data were obtained from eight of the 47 abstracts, and put into sensitivity analysis. There were small changes in effect sizes and directions for three of 14 reviews' secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Common reasons of failure to reach full publication were also identified in the context for the BPE review. Inclusion of abstract data did not affect primary outcome defined in the original review. Identification, summarisation of conference abstracts and other grey literature should form an essential exercise for any systematic review.

Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies

BACKGROUND

The validity of research synthesis is threatened if published studies comprise a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted. We conducted a meta-analysis to ascertain the strength and consistency of the association between study results and formal publication.

METHODS

The Cochrane Methodology Register Database, MEDLINE and other electronic bibliographic databases were searched (to May 2009) to identify empirical studies that tracked a cohort of studies and reported the odds of formal publication by study results. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also examined for relevant studies. Odds ratios were used to measure the association between formal publication and significant or positive results. Included studies were separated into subgroups according to starting time of follow-up, and results from individual cohort studies within the subgroups were quantitatively pooled.

RESULTS

We identified 12 cohort studies that followed up research from inception, four that included trials submitted to a regulatory authority, 28 that assessed the fate of studies presented as conference abstracts, and four cohort studies that followed manuscripts submitted to journals. The pooled odds ratio of publication of studies with positive results, compared to those without positive results (publication bias) was 2.78 (95% CI: 2.10 to 3.69) in cohorts that followed from inception, 5.00 (95% CI: 2.01 to 12.45) in trials submitted to regulatory authority, 1.70 (95% CI: 1.44 to 2.02) in abstract cohorts, and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.80 to 1.39) in cohorts of manuscripts.

CONCLUSION

Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process. Publication bias appears to occur early, mainly before the presentation of findings at conferences or submission of manuscripts to journals.

Publication rates for hip surgery-related abstracts presented at national and international meetings

Presentation at national and international meetings is a useful way to disseminate new information. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal remains the gold standard. We analyzed the publication rates of oral presentations from the British and European Hip Society, British Orthopaedic Association, and European Federation of Orthopaedics and Traumatology between 2003 and 2006. Multiple databases were used to identify publication of work presented as an abstract at these meetings. The publishing journal, time until publication, impact factor of publishing journal, and rate of publication identified by each database were analyzed. The overall mean publication rate across the 4 meetings was 23.4%; there were no significant differences between the meetings. Google Scholar (P<.01) and Medline (P<.05) identified significantly more publications than EMBASE. There were no significant differences between the mean impact factors of the publishing journals (P=.18). There were no significant differences in abstract publication rate or impact factor between meetings. The overall mean subsequent publication rates for presented abstracts related to hip surgery were low, and data presented but not yet published should be treated with caution. Google Scholar and Medline are superior to EMBASE for identification of peer-reviewed research.

Publication rates for abstracts presented by Korean investigators at major radiology meetings

Objective

To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented by Korean investigators at national and international radiological meetings, and to identify predictive factors of publication.

Materials and Methods

Abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Korean Radiological Society (KRS), and abstracts presented by Korean investigators at the annual meetings of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) and European Congress of Radiology (ECR) from 2001 to 2002 were searched for subsequent publication, using PubMed and the Korean Medical Database. The following variables were evaluated. 1) The overall publication rate; 2) the publication rates according to the radiological subspecialty, presentation type (oral or poster), sample size (≤ 20, 21-50, or > 50), study design (prospective or retrospective), statistical analysis (present or absent), and study outcome (positive or negative); 3) the time to publication; 4) the journal where the study was published; 5) consistency between the abstract and the final publication.

Results

Of 1,097 abstracts, 301 (27.4%) were subsequently published, at an average of 15.8 ± 13.8 months after presentation in 48 journals. The publication rates for studies presented at the RSNA (35.4%) and ECR (50.5%) conferences were significantly higher than that for the KRS conference (23.6%, p < 0.05). Vascular/interventional radiology studies had the highest publication rate (33.1%), whereas musculoskeletal radiology studies had the lowest publication rate (17.1%). Other factors associated with subsequent publication were prospective design, use of statistical testing, and a positive study outcome.

Conclusion

The publication rate is significantly lower for the KRS (23.6%) meeting abstracts as compared to those of the RSNA (35.4%) and ECR (50.5%). Prospective design, use of statistical testing, and positive study outcome have a statistically significant effect on the publication rate.

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.

[What is the publication rate of papers presented at the French Association of Urology annual conferences?]

The meeting of the French Association of Urology (AFU) occurs once a year. Some communications are consequently published in national or international journals. We analysed the criteria of publication of works communicated during the AFU meeting.

MATERIAL

We analysed all the communications of the 94th and the 95th meeting of AFU from years 2000 and 2001, identified from the Progrès en urologie supplements. We then asked Medline covering a period of time from January 1996 to December 2006 and then compared communications to similar published articles.

RESULTS

The overall publication rate was 34.5%. Articles (38.6%) were published the year following the meeting but the main articles were published the following 2 years after the meeting (78.42%). The mean time for publication was 16.9months. The prospective studies had a publication rate of 44.1% versus 24.8% for retrospective studies. One article over five was published in Progrès en urologie (21.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one third of communications of the French meeting of urology was then published. Twenty percent were published in Progrès en urologie. Different way could increase the publication rate. The time for publication, higher for this meeting than for others, may decrease with the new submission website.

How to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This article introduces practicing urologists to the critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to guide their evidence-based clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a urological clinical case scenario we introduce a 3-step process in evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses by considering 1) the validity of the review results, 2) what the results are, and 3) the extent to which the results can and should be applied to patient care.

RESULTS

A systematic review seeks to synthesize the medical literature about a specific clinical question using explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search, identify and select eligible studies, critically appraise their methods, and judiciously summarize the results considering how they vary with study characteristics. When this summary involves statistical methods, ie a meta-analysis, reviewers can offer a pooled estimate that will have greater precision and will apply more broadly than the individual studies. The quality of the underlying studies, the consistency of results across studies and the precision of the pooled estimate can considerably affect the strength of inference from systematic reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Valid systematic reviews of high quality studies can increase the confidence with which urologists and patients make evidence-based decisions. Thus, urologists need to recognize the inherent limitations, understand the results and apply them judiciously to patient care.

SUS/AAS abstracts: what is the scientific impact?

AIM

To evaluate the scientific impact of presentations at the annual meetings of the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) and the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS).

METHODS

All Abstracts presented at the 2002-2004 annual conferences were examined for publication rate (PR), publication citation (PC) and journal impact factor (IF).

RESULTS

Overall, 1200 abstracts from the SUS (n = 543,45%) and AAS (n = 657,55%) were reviewed. One way ANOVA analysis of SUS results across session types demonstrated significant differences in PR (89% plenary, 81% parallel, 100% basic science, 47% resident conference, poster 76%, p < 0.0001), but no difference in PC (12.96 plenary, 9.66 parallel, 7.77 basic science, 8.23 resident conference, 8.21 poster, p = 0.25561) or IF (4.17 plenary, 3.50 parallel, 2.66 basic science, 3.12 resident conference 3.13 poster, p = 0.3947). AAS results demonstrated significant differences for PR (81% plenary, 62% parallel and 43% poster, p < 0.0001), CR (8.33 plenary, 4.81 parallel, and 4.78 poster, p = 0.006) and IF (3.75 plenary, 2.64 parallel, and 2.73 poster, p = 0.0124). Comparison of abstracts between meetings demonstrated a higher overall PR, CR and IF for SUS publications (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that SUS and AAS presentations constitute high-quality research, Trends towards higher PR, PC and IF for plenary sessions indicate that the review process properly stratifies research. Statistically higher impact measures for SUS presentations are consistent with the more mature research careers of SUS members.

What happens to the abstracts presented at the Societè Internationale d'Urologie meeting?

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the acceptance rate on peer-reviewed journals, describe the time-course of subsequent full publication, and identify those with characteristics associated with publication from the abstracts presented at the Societè Internationale d'Urologie (SIU) meeting.

METHODS

All abstracts accepted for presentation at the annual 2002 and 2004 SIU meetings were identified from the published supplements in the BJU International. The subsequent publication rate for the corresponding studies by scanning Medline was evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 1877 abstracts were presented, 415 of which (22.1%) were followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals. The mean time to publication was 13 months (range, 1 to 45 months). A total of 60.6% of the published articles were in print within 1 year of presentation "In most of the cases the reports were published in The Journal of Urology (76 reports) and in Urology (49 reports). Abstracts on kidney cancer, urinary diversion, incontinence, and urolithiasis had the highest publication rates (43.4%, 36.6%, 33.3%, and 29.2%, respectively). Studies from North America and from Oceania had the highest publication rate (26.8% and 26.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

One fifth of the abstracts presented at the SIU meetings are ultimately published in indexed journals. Delegates attending these meetings should be aware of this issue when taking into account findings from meeting reports for their clinical practice. Factors influencing their publication are the abstract geographical area of origin, the study subject, and the research type. The Journal of Urology and Urology represented target journals for the publication more than other ones.

Study characteristics of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the southeastern section of the American Urological Association (1996-2005)

PURPOSE

We determined study characteristics, authorship and institutional origin of studies presented in abstract form at the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings and identified predictors of full text publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All abstracts of poster and podium presentations from the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings from 1996 to 2005 were reviewed. A standardized evaluation form was developed and tested in 2 subsets of 50 abstracts, and then applied by 2 individual reviewers with specific coding instructions. Predictor variables analyzed included study origin, design, topic, domain, presentation form, number of patients, reporting of statistical analysis and gender. Univariate and multivariate analysis was applied using SPSS version 14.0.

RESULTS

A total of 1,195 abstracts were found eligible for review. The mean number of abstracts presented per year was 120 +/- 16 (range 107 to 146). In clinical studies (1,068) approximately three-quarters of the abstracts reported case series (801, 75.0%). Cohort studies accounted for 11.2% of the abstracts and 4.0% were randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Median followup was 64 months (range 17 to 126) and the overall publication rate was 33.5%. First and senior female authorship were identified in 6.2% (74) and 5.4% (64) of abstracts presented, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of studies presented at the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings continue to represent small case series that may not be well suited to guide clinical decision making. Only a third of studies are subsequently published in the peer reviewed literature. The percentage of abstracts with female authorship remains low suggesting that increased efforts to involve women in urological research are indicated.