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

Charting the course from abstract to published article

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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 Many abstracts ultimately remain unpublished; therefore, they do not attain a level of scientific scrutiny that merits alteration of clinical care.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

Conducting a Pathology Research Study, From Start to Finish

CONTEXT.—

Many pathologists-in-training enter residency or fellowship with either no formal experience in research or with a basic science research background that may not translate well to research in the realm of diagnostic pathology, including surgical pathology, cytopathology, and clinical pathology.

OBJECTIVE.—

To provide a starting point and practical framework for residents or fellows who wish to conduct research in these fields.

DATA SOURCES.—

Existing literature and the pooled experience of the authors, all academic pathologists.

CONCLUSIONS.—

We provide tips and tricks that trainees will find useful when planning and executing pathology research projects. A key component of successful research in diagnostic pathology is active guidance by a skilled faculty mentor, bolstered by enthusiastic, timely work by a highly motivated and dedicated trainee. We hope this advice will improve interactions between trainees and their faculty mentors and enhance the quality of research in diagnostic pathology.

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.

Publication Rate of Avian Medicine Conference Abstracts and Influencing Factors: 2011-2015

International conferences on avian medicine and surgery aim to disseminate scientific and evidence-based information in the form of oral presentations and posters. Most manuscripts presented are printed in the conference proceedings as abstracts. Subsequent publication in a scientific peer-reviewed journal is the natural outcome of the research cycle, although studies have shown that the vast majority of conference abstracts are not published. The purpose of this study was to explore 1) the fate of abstracts presented in avian conferences (Association of Avian Veterinarians, European Association of Avian Veterinarians, International Conference on Avian Herpetological and Exotic Mammal Medicine) in the years 2011-2015, 2) assess the publication rate in peer-reviewed journals, 3) describe the time course of subsequent publication, and 4) identify factors associated with increased likelihood of publication. The results showed that 24% of conference abstracts were published within the next 2 years. Depending on the statistical model used, several factors were identified as associated with increased publication rate. North American papers seem to publish with more frequency (univariate model), while European papers had the opposite trend (multivariable model). Likewise, experimental studies were more prone to being published overall (univariate model), whereas retrospective observational studies had a lower rate of publication (multivariable model). Increasing the number of authors was also associated with increased publication rate. Most publications were published in the Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery, which tends to suggest that this journal is the main journal of the specialty. Some parameters highlighted in this study may assist conference attendees to assess the likelihood of later publication.

Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting

BACKGROUND

Failure to publish study results causes duplication of effort and is a significant source of waste. It also can lead to distortions in the evidence base that can lead to misallocation of resources and medical harm. Failure to publish is commonly studied by comparing the conversion rate of meeting abstracts or publication rate of registered trials and has not been studied in clinical chemistry. The objective of this study was to determine the abstract conversion rate in clinical chemistry.

METHODS

For the set of abstracts published from the 2011 annual meeting of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, we determined which converted to full publications and which had not. We used 3 methods to match publications to abstracts: 1) a survey sent to corresponding authors of abstracts, 2) a web scrape of Google Scholar, and PubMed, and 3) a manual search using Scopus. Publication rates were compared by topic, country of corresponding author, institution type, and award recognition.

RESULTS

Matching publications were found for 38% (95% CI: 34-42%) of the abstracts. The acceptance rate for submitted manuscripts was 34% (95% CI: 28-43%) among those who responded to the survey. Publication rates varied by topic (range 13% to 59%); rates from academic institutions were higher than commercial institutions (42% vs 16%, p<0.001). The publication rate of abstracts recognized "with distinction" was significantly greater than the publication rate of non-winners (68% vs 37%, p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of abstracts presented at the AACC national meeting are not followed by full publication.

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

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Publication outcomes of abstracts presented at an American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals annual scientific meeting

OBJECTIVE

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP) Annual Scientific Meeting is an important forum for early dissemination of novel ideas. However, unlike published studies in peer-reviewed journals, reviewers select abstracts based solely on a general summary of the research. Analyses of the scientific impact and the publication record of the ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting have not been previously described. This study characterizes publication trends and outcomes associated with abstracts presented at the ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting.

METHODS

We identified all abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation at the 2006 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting. Using a defined search algorithm, we conducted a manual PubMed search for each accepted abstract, which was repeated by a custom computerized search, and analyzed the resulting journal title, impact factor, and time to publication.

RESULTS

A total of 2,149 abstracts were analyzed. The overall publication ratio was 59.1%. The mean ± SD time from abstract presentation to publication was 18.2 ± 15.2 months with a mean ± SD impact factor of 5.61 ± 4.20. Overall, studies presented in oral format were significantly more likely to be published than poster presentations (P < 0.0001). The average time to publication was significantly shorter for basic science studies than clinical research studies (P < 0.0001). The average journal impact factor of published studies presented in oral format was significantly higher than those presented as posters (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

These results reflect high research productivity with a publication ratio of approximately 60% for abstracts presented at the 2006 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship, ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors.