Publication rates for the scientific sessions of the OTA. Orthopaedic Trauma Association

How far do oral lectures at European Orthodontic Society congresses reach? A comparison of abstract publication rates, article citations, and social media mentions

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the scientific impact of oral abstracts presented in five consecutive European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses in terms of full-text publication rates as well as citations and social media metrics (altmetrics) of the resulting articles.

METHODS

PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.nl/) were screened to identify published articles originally presented as lectures at EOS 2015-2019. EOS date, abstract title, subject, number of authors, authors' names, first author's country of origin, and type of affiliation were extracted from congress abstract books. Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs), number of X (formerly Twitter) posts, Mendeley reads, and citations of the articles were retrieved from Altmetric Explorer and Web of Science (WoS) databases, respectively. Abstract details, full publication rates and Altmetric mentions and WoS citations of the related articles were analysed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 51.79 to 73.91% of the lectures presented at EOS 2015-2019 were converted into peer-reviewed articles. There was a median interval of 10.95 months (interquartile range 20.5 months) between conference and publication dates. EOS congress year (overall Wald test P-value = .04) and number of authors (overall Wald test P-value < .01) were significant predictors for full-text publication of oral lectures. There was no significant effect of EOS presentation on AASs, citations, X posts, and Mendeley readers (P > .05).

LIMITATIONS

Journal impact factors and quartile rankings were not considered to determine the impact of the journals that published articles originally presented as EOS oral abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 61.30% of EOS 2015-2019 lectures were published as full-length articles. Multi-authored abstracts presented higher odds of publication, whereas oral abstracts presented at EOS 2015 and 2018 had the lowest probabilities to reach full publication. EOS abstract-based articles were assigned similar numbers of citations and AASs to articles not presented at EOS congresses.

No difference in abstract publication rates between the open and closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons meetings from 2013 to 2019

BACKGROUND

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society has advanced the practice of shoulder and elbow care through the exhibition of research at academic meetings. The ASES annual meeting is a closed (member-only) conference annually held in October, while the specialty day is an open (non-members included) event that takes place during the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting week in March. This study aims to compare the rate of publication for abstracts presented at the open and closed ASES meetings from 2013 to 2019.

METHODS

The ASES website was searched to obtain the annual meeting and specialty day program agendas from 2013 to 2019. A standardized search protocol was employed to identify conference abstracts that went on to be published. Publications associated with an ASES abstract were analyzed through several variables including the time to publication, journal impact factor (JIF), and level of evidence.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the rates of publication of the open (76.5%, 121/158) and closed (75.3%, 223/296) meetings (P = .904). The median time to publication significantly differed between the open (7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0-10.0) and closed (11 months, 95% CI: 9.0-13.0) meetings (P = .02). There was no difference between the median JIF between the open (2.69, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) and closed (2.73, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) meetings. The distribution of the level of evidence in published articles comparing the open and closed meetings did not differ significantly (P = .446).

DISCUSSION

The overall quality of academic research presented at orthopedic subspecialty conferences can be objectively evaluated through abstract publication rates. Our analysis demonstrates that there is not a single significant difference among the publication rates, median JIF, and level of evidence distribution between the ASES open and closed meetings from 2013 to 2019. Impactful research is showcased at both the open and closed meetings. Societies that limit submissions from members only at annual meetings can consider soliciting research from non-members. While the quality of research would not decline if non-ASES members were invited to participate, the presence of a closed annual meeting may be a valuable tool for societies to expand their reach through member-exclusive benefits.

Abstract Presentation at Two Veterinary Surgery Conferences and the Impact on Publication Rate

OBJECTIVES

 The aim of this study was to compare the publication rate (PR) and report descriptive findings from abstracts presented at the American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS), the Veterinary Orthopaedic Society (VOS), and those presented at both conferences.

STUDY DESIGN

 All conference abstracts from 2001 to 2010 ACVS and VOS meetings were reviewed. PR in peer-reviewed journals was evaluated and compared between Group 1 (abstracts presented at ACVS only; n = 1,277), Group 2 (abstracts presented at VOS only; n = 645), and Group 3 (abstracts presented at both conferences; n = 121) abstracts. Abstracts were assigned a level of evidence (LoE) score.

RESULTS

 Approximately 6% of all abstracts evaluated were presented at two scientific meetings (Group 3). The PR of Group 1 (66%) and Group 3 (62%) abstracts was significantly higher than that of Group 2 (45%). The majority of abstracts were assigned a low LoE (3 or 4). Once presented, most Group 3 abstracts took <12 months to be submitted and <24 months to be published.

CONCLUSION

 This study found that a limited number of abstracts were presented at both ACVS and VOS, and PR was significantly different between those presented at ACVS only or both ACVS and VOS compared with VOS only. There was no significant difference in PR between Group 1 and Group 3 abstracts. This study has provided the initial comparison between abstracts presented at two veterinary surgical conferences.

Publication Rate and Evidence-Based Evaluation of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Veterinary Orthopedic Society Conference

OBJECTIVES

 Scientific abstracts are a common method for disseminating new research. There is no information on the publication rate of orthopaedic surgery abstracts presented at the annual Veterinary Orthopedic Society (VOS) Conference. The objectives of this study were to document the publication rate, the publication timeline and the level of evidence (LoE) of abstracts presented at an annual orthopaedic meeting.

STUDY DESIGN

 All conference abstracts from the 2001 to 2014 annual VOS meeting were reviewed, and final publication was determined through a comprehensive bibliographic search.

RESULTS

 Over 14 conferences, 1,112 scientific abstracts were presented with an overall publication rate of 47%. The majority of abstracts had low LoE scores, and those abstracts were published less timely than ones with higher LoE scores. Once presented, most abstracts took 1 year to be submitted and 2 years to be published. Dog (45%) and ex vivo (19%) studies were the most common. Publication occurred most frequently in Veterinary Surgery (40%), Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology (17%) and the American Journal of Veterinary Research (12%).

CONCLUSION

 The publication rate for abstracts presented at the annual VOS meeting is lower than those from a more generalized veterinary surgery conference. Publication occurs most frequently in a select group of journals, and the subject matter is limited in scope with a focus on dog and ex vivo studies. Overall, most abstracts presented at VOS contain a lower LoE.

Publication Rates of Posters From the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Annual Meeting 2011-2016: Posters Are Not Second Rate

OBJECTIVE

To determine the publication rate of posters presented at the OTA annual meeting from 2011 to 2016.

METHODS

All posters presented at the OTA annual meetings from 2011 to 2016 were identified from the OTA's official website and confirmed through review of the OTA official programs. This information was then used to direct a search, and if the presentation was associated with a publication, publishing information was entered into the database.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2016, there were a total of 875 posters with 473 associated publications (54%). The highest rate of publication was 64.1% of posters published in 2012. The posters were published at an average of 19.4 months after presentation. One hundred sixty posters were published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (35%).

CONCLUSION

Our research demonstrated a 54% publication rate over a 6-year period of posters presented at the OTA annual meetings. This rate is higher than other publication rates for podium presentations in other societies (eg, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and American Academy for Surgery of the Hand). This validates the quality of research presented in poster format at the OTA annual meeting.

Assessing publication rate of abstracts presented in spine conferences as a quality benchmark: the example of the Canadian Spine Society Annual Meetings

INTRODUCTION

Publication rate can indirectly assess the quality of research presented in scientific meetings. Considering presentations at orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery meetings, 10.5-66% of abstracts are published in scientific journals. Publication rate of abstracts presented at CSS Meetings is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Canadian Spine Society(CSS) Annual Meetings from 2005to2014.

METHODS

In October2018, a systematic PubMed search was performed using title and authors of all abstracts presented at CSS Meetings from 2005 to 2014. The following information was retrieved from the articles and abstracts: year, type of presentation, publication in PubMed, time from presentation to final publication, journal and its impact factor(IF).

RESULTS

A total of 621 abstracts were presented at CSS meetings from 2005 to 2014. Publication rate in PubMed was 54.8%(N=340/621). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations(63.8%vs44.0%; OR=1.45; CI95%=1.20-1.75; P<0.0001). The mean time from presentation to publication was 1.76 years(±1.93). The 340 identified articles were published in 87 different journals. Most common journals were Spine(N=75; 22.1%), The Spine Journal(N=40;11.8%), and Journal of Neurosurgery:Spine(N=28;8.2%). IF ranged from 0.18 to 47.66(mean=3.73±4.68). IF of articles presented orally were higher than those presented as poster(P=0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

The CSS scientific meeting maintain along the years a steady high quality research presentations as manifested by its significant publication rate(54.8%) in medical journals with mean IF of 3.73. In comparison with other spine scientific meetings, publication rates of abstracts presented at CSS meeting is amongst the highest.

Abstracts Accepted for Presentation at Orthopaedic Trauma or Arthroplasty Conferences: Which Conference Is the Best Indicator of Future Publication?

Time and financial resources pose limitations to orthopaedic surgeons wishing to advance their orthopaedic knowledge, and surgeons frequently must choose one meeting to attend. We sought to determine whether abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting or the trauma (Orthopaedic Trauma Association [OTA]) or arthroplasty (American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons [AAHKS]) subspecialty meetings, respectively, were higher yield with respect to material ultimately being published. We hypothesized that papers accepted by AAOS would demonstrate higher conversion to publication compared with OTA and AAHKS but expected abstract publication rates from OTA and AAHKS to be similar.

What happens to intimate partner violence studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov? A systematic review of a clinical trials registry

Background

There is an increasing number of interventions aimed at reducing the incidence and improving the identification and management of intimate partner violence (IPV), which are being tested in randomized clinical trials. Publication bias, improper reporting, and selective reporting in clinical trials have led to widespread adoption of pre-registration of clinical trials. Non-publication of study results leads to inefficiency, ethical issues, and scientific issues with the IPV literature. When study results and methodology are not made available through publication or other public means, the results cannot be used to their full potential. The objective of this study was to determine the publication rates of IPV trials registered in a large clinical trial registry.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of all IPV-related clinicaltrials.gov records and determined whether the studies that had been completed for ≥ 18 months have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or in the clinicaltrials.gov registry. Two authors extensively searched the literature and contacted study investigators to locate full-text publications for each included study.

Results

Of 83 completed IPV-related trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov, 64 (77.1%, 95% CI: 66.6–85.6) were subsequently published in full-text form. Of the 19 unpublished studies, authors confirmed that there was no publication for 11 studies; we were unable to contact the investigator or locate a publication for the remaining eight studies. Only four studies (all published) posted their results on clinicaltrials.gov upon completion.

Conclusion

Approximately one in four IPV trials are not published 18 months after completion, indicating that clinicians, researchers, and other evidence users should consider whether publication bias might affect their interpretation of the IPV literature. Further research is warranted to understand reasons for non-publication of IPV research and methods to improve publication rates.

Publication rate of podium presentations from the orthopaedic research society annual meeting

Annual scientific meetings serve as a forum for dissemination of new research findings. Presentations should be of high scientific quality as they have the potential to impact future research projects and current clinical practice. The publication rate of podium presentations at an annual meeting can be used to assess the quality of the research presented. The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rate of podium presentations at the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) annual meeting. All podium presentations from the 2012 to 2014 annual ORS meetings were identified. Abstracts were categorized into an orthopaedic topic. A PubMed search was performed to determine if an abstract reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The publication rate was determined for each year. Of the 1063 podium presentations identified, 640 (60.2%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. No significant differences were observed in the publication rate between the orthopaedic topics (p = 0.3414). The majority (75.9%) of published abstracts reached publication within 2 years of presentation and the average time to publication was 17.0 months. Abstracts were published in 151 different journals with an average impact factor of 4.46. Time to publication varied significantly by journal (p = 0.025). Journal of Orthopaedic Research, Journal of Biomechanics, PLoS ONE, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, and Bone were the most common publication journals. This study provides insight into the quality of podium presentations at the ORS annual meeting. The ORS annual meeting compares favorably to other orthopaedic surgery meetings. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:288-292, 2019.

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.

Current Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Annual Meetings: 2005-2010

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2005-2010 Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) Annual Meetings.

METHODS

All abstracts from the 2005 to 2010 OTA meetings were identified through the OTA's official website. Each abstract was searched across PubMed and Google to determine its publication status. The overall publication rate of abstracts was determined, along with the first authors' sex, number of authors, time and journal of publication, and analyzed with statistical testing.

RESULTS

Of the 392 abstracts presented at the 2005-2010 OTA meetings, the overall publication rate was 66.3%, with an overall mean time to publication of 28.3 months. The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma published 38.5% of published OTA abstracts, the most of any journal. The proportions of published OTA abstracts with female first authors exhibit increasing trends within the time period.

CONCLUSION

The quality of research presented at OTA meetings is relatively high compared with other orthopaedic meetings, with 66.3% of OTA abstracts progressing to peer-reviewed publication. The publication rate of 2005-2010 OTA abstracts was greater than that of the 1990-1995 abstracts. The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma remains the most frequent publisher of manuscripts presented as abstracts at OTA meetings. Although most abstracts are eventually published, the information presented at these meetings, like all scholarly work, should be critically evaluated as they have undergone a less robust peer-review process and may be modified in the future in preparation for publication.

Publication of Podium Presentations at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association Annual Meetings: 2008-2012

OBJECTIVE

To determine journal publication rates of podium presentations from the OTA Annual Meetings between 2008 and 2012.

METHODS

Podium presentations from the 2008 to 2012 OTA annual meeting were compiled from the Annual Meeting archives. During December 2016, and Google Scholar were performed using individual keywords in the abstract title and content. The results were reviewed for matches to the meeting abstracts with regard to the title, authors, and abstract content. Yearly publication rates were calculated, along with time to publication and common journals for publication.

RESULTS

The publication rate for the 357 podium abstracts presented at the OTA between 2008 and 2012 was 72.8%. Eighty-one percent of abstracts were from the US institutions. The mean time to publication from podium presentation was 23.4 months, and the most common journals of publication were Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (45.4%) and The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (15.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate of the podium presentations at the OTA Annual Meeting from 2008 to 2012 has increased since previous years. Compared with other orthopaedic subspecialty and nonorthopaedic specialty meetings, the OTA publication rate is among the highest in the medical field. OTA annual meetings are an opportunity for early access to high-quality research in the area of orthopaedic trauma.

Publication Rate of Podium Presentations From the North American Spine Society Annual Meetings

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the publication rate of podium presentations from the North American Spine Society (NASS) annual meetings from the years 2009 to 2011.

METHODS

In April 2015, a PubMed search was conducted using titles from the paper presentations as well as the authors. Of the search results that were found, the specific scientific journal in which the article was published was recorded. We analyzed further the top 4 destination journals and trends in publications in these journals over the study period. No study funding was obtained for this research, and there are no potential conflicts of interest or associated biases.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 671 paper presentations were available and 342 were published (51% publication rate). The highest publication rate was from the 2011 annual meeting, with 55.3%, and the lowest year was 2010, with a rate of 46.43%. Spine (32.75%), The Spine Journal (19.01%), Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (7.31%), and European Spine Journal (6.73%) were the top 4 destination journals. Over the study period, we found a significant decrease in publication rate in Spine (P = .001) and a significant increase in publication rate in The Spine Journal (P = .003). There were no significant difference in publication rate over the study period in Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (P = .15) or European Spine Journal (P = .23).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to our knowledge evaluating the publication rate of podium presentations from recent North American Spine Society annual meetings. We found an overall publication rate of 51%.

Publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION

Publication of a study is the end point of the process to contribute to the literature and confirm the scientific value of the study. Publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of neurosurgery have been studied, previously. However, publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of pediatric neurosurgery have not been reported, yet. We evaluated abstracts presented at the 38th annual meeting of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery (ISPN) held in South Korea, 2010.

METHODS

We conducted this cross-sectional study by reviewing the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the ISPN, 2010. Titles and authors of the abstracts were surveyed using Google Scholar and PubMed/MEDLINE. Time to publication, origin of the study, journal name in which the study has been accepted and published, and type of study has been analyzed for each abstract.

RESULTS

The abstract booklet included 235 abstracts, consisted of 128 oral presentations (54%) and 107 electronic posters (46%). Fifty-nine (46%) of the oral presentations were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Laboratory studies were more likely to be published when compared to the clinical studies (72 vs. 39%). Thirty-two (30%) of the electronic posters were published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the published abstracts were from Asia and Europe. Most of the abstracts were published in Child's Nervous System and Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics.

CONCLUSION

Publication rates of the abstracts presented at annual meeting of the ISPN were comparable to the other similar congresses. Oral presentations were more likely to be published. High publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the ISPN suggested that the meeting had a high scientific value.

Do we publish what we preach? Analysis of the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress publication rates

Background

Scientific congresses have become the most expedient method to communicate novel findings on any research topic. However, an important question is whether this information will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Our aim was to determine the publication rate of the abstracts presented at the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress and analyze factors that may influence this rate.

Methods

A total of 398 abstracts reported in the Abstract Book from the 2008 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress were examined and categorized by oral and poster presentations, topic, and the number of authors listed. A search in PubMed and Google Scholar for subsequent peer-reviewed publications was performed in September 2015. The time to publication after the meeting had been held; the type of journal and its impact factor at the time to publication were recorded for those abstracts that reached peer-reviewed journal publication.

Results

The overall publication rate for the 2008 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow oral and poster presentations was 45.20% after 7 years. The mean time to publication was 18.53 months, and the mean impact factor value was 2.32. Oral presentations were significantly better represented in journals than posters (64.40 vs. 35.40%, p < 0.001). Abstracts with a greater number of authors listed had better publication rates (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Less than half of the oral presentations and posters at the 21st European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress were published in peer-reviewed journals. Oral presentations with a higher number of authors had an increased likelihood of being published.

How Well Do They Convert? Trending ASAPS Presentations to Publication From 1995-2010

BACKGROUND

The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) sponsors an annual conference that promotes education, advocacy, and care. There, researchers deliver abstracts as podium and poster presentations. Subsequently, ASAPS encourages submitting these research findings for publication. Yet, many never become published manuscripts.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the conversion rates of oral abstract presentations to publication from 1995 to 2010. Secondary objectives included evaluating trends in presentations, publications, time to publication, and published journal distribution.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature search in PubMed cross-referencing oral abstract presentations and determining peer-reviewed publication status. The conversion rate and time to publication was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 569 oral presentations met the inclusion criteria. The mean annual presentations was 35.6. A total of 360 presentations became journal publications. The mean annual publications was 22.5. The mean conversion rate was 63.3% (R², 0.1271; P-value of .23). The mean time to publication was 19.8 months. Most publications occurred within two years of presentation (87.5%). Publications appeared in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS, 48.6%), Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ, 27.8%), Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (APS, 5.6%), Annals of Plastic Surgery (AnnPS, 4.2%), Clinics in Plastic Surgery (CPS, 3.9%), and other journals (10%). Trending ASJ publications vs other journals in five year intervals demonstrated an increase from 18.7% to 58.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

While the number of presentations and publications declined, the time to publication, and conversion rate remained largely the same. Despite its short existence, ASJ became the predominant journal publishing ASAPS abstracts by the end of the study period.

Publications Rates for Podium and Poster Presentations from the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society

BACKGROUND

National orthopaedic meetings are used to disseminate current research through podium and poster abstract presentations. Not all of these abstracts go on to full-text journal publication. The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rates of podium and poster presentations from the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) annual meetings between 2008 and 2012.

METHODS

All accepted podium and poster abstracts from the 2008-2012 AOFAS annual meetings were compiled from the AOFAS office, Physician Resource Center website, and hardcopy meeting programs. PubMed and Google Scholar searches were performed for journal publications using key words in the presentation abstracts and authors' names. Full-text journal publication rates for the presentations were calculated per year, as were the most common journals of publication.

RESULTS

Overall full-text publication rate was 73.7% for podium presentations and 55.8% for posters. Podium presentations were published in a journal significantly more often than posters ( P < .0001; odds ratio 2.17 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.64-2.86]). The mean time to publication was 1.5 and 1.4 years for podium and poster presentations, respectively ( P = .124). The most common journal for podium and poster publications was Foot & Ankle International.

CONCLUSION

Podium abstracts were significantly more likely to be published compared to posters. The AOFAS overall full-text journal publication rate was one of the higher reported rates compared with other national orthopedic society meetings, which have ranged from 34% to 73%.

The Publication Rate of Presentations at Two International Spine Meetings: Scoliosis Research Society and International Meeting of Advanced Spinal Techniques

STUDY DESIGN

Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the publication rate of podium presentations from the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) and the International Meeting of Advanced Spinal Techniques (IMAST) annuals meeting and to compare the publication rate of SRS/IMAST meetings to other orthopedic and spine meetings.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although various publication rates from orthopedic meetings have been reported, recent publication rates from the SRS and IMAST annual meetings are not known.

METHODS

Paper presentations and award-nominated papers from the 2009 to 2011 annual SRS and IMAST meetings were identified. Using PubMed, we searched for publications with a title of the paper presentations or containing the same authors. The publication rate of the award-nominated papers were evaluated in the same manner. We also identified the destination journals of the papers.

RESULTS

A total of 764 podium presentations were presented at SRS and IMAST from 2009 to 2011. Of these 764 abstracts, 339 were published in peer-reviewed journals, with an overall publication rate of 44.37%. The publication rates for the two different meetings (SRS and IMAST) were significantly different, 47.83% (SRS) and 41.53% (IMAST), p = .03. Award-nominated abstracts had a publication rate of 63.64% (49/77) significantly different than nonnominated abstracts, 42.4% (290/684); p = .0004. There was a significant difference in publication rates between the SRS award-nominated abstracts (72.97%, 27/37) and the nonnominated abstracts (45.25%; 138/305), p = .0001. There was no difference in publication rates for IMAST award-nominated abstracts 55% (21/40) and nonnominated abstracts (40.1%, 152/379), p = .27. The publication rate was highest for 2010 abstracts (45.78%), followed by 2009 (43.94%), and lowest for 2011 (43.43%). Spine was the most common publication journal for the two meetings.

CONCLUSION

In one of the first studies evaluating the publication rate of podium presentation from the SRS and IMAST annual meetings, we found an overall publication rate of 44.37% (47.83% SRS, 41.53% IMAST) and 63.64% for award-nominated papers.

"Publish or perish"-presentations at annual national orthopaedic meetings and their correlation with subsequent publication

Background

Presentation of research at annual national orthopaedic conferences not only serves as a forum for the dissemination of knowledge but is also often a requirement of orthopaedic training programmes. The expected outcome is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. However, publication rates vary for a variety of reasons. The objective of this study was to determine publication rates of presentations from our local Singapore Orthopaedic Association (SOA) annual scientific meeting (ASM) and some of the potential associated factors. We also compared our findings to equivalent meetings worldwide to assess value of scientific content of various orthopaedic conferences.

Methods

All presentations of six SOA ASMs were entered into a database. Using presentation titles, author names and keywords in PubMed and Google Scholar, we determined how many presentations progressed to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Various comparisons were made to determine factors that could influence publication rates. A comparison with national orthopaedic meetings of America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Turkey and Brazil was also conducted.

Results

Excluding the ASMs with less than 4 years of follow-up, the publication rate was 35.8%. Both podium and international presenters were found to have significantly higher publication rates than poster and local presenters, respectively, while basic science and clinical research were found to have equivalent rates. Publication rates from other countries’ national conferences ranged between 26.6% and 58.1%.

Conclusions

We suggest that the quality of a presentation is related to its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our findings support the general consensus that the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is the gold standard for the dissemination of orthopaedic knowledge updates and advancements in our specialty. Each national orthopaedic association could determine the ratio of “presentations at ASM” to “publication within five years of presentation” and use this as a measure of their annual conference’s impact on the addition and advancement to the orthopaedic literature. This tool may in turn assist clinicians in determining which meetings to attend.

Presentation and publication rates among women and men at AAO-HNS meetings

OBJECTIVE

We attempted to assess the percentages of abstracts submitted to annual American Academy of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) meetings from 2000 to 2004 by both women and men. We sought to determine the subsequent peer-reviewed overall publication rates for all submissions. We also studied trends of submission among female presenters and compared them to males.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic medical center.

METHODS

2,463 total abstracts presented between 2000 and 2004 were searched in the computerized databases Medline and Pubmed in 2008. The published articles were examined by reviewers to assess publication rate, time to publication, gender of authorship and subspecialty of publication.

RESULTS

1,413 (57.35%) posters and 1,051 (42.65%) oral presentations were presented from 2000 to 2004. Of the 1,413 posters presented, 275 (19.46%) were presented by female first authors. The female first-author poster publication rate was 33.81%, while the male first-author poster publication rate was 36.99% (p = 0.353). Of 1,051 oral presentations, 154 (14.65%) were presented by female first authors. The male first-author oral presentation publication rate was 60.98%, while the female first-author oral presentation publication rate was 59.09% (p = 0.657). There were no statistical differences in time to publication for posters (p = 0.796) or oral presentations (p = 0.737) between the genders. The majority of female first-author submissions involved pediatric (29.94%) and general (17.88%) otolaryngology.

CONCLUSION

While women are increasingly drawn to otolaryngology, they represented less than 20% of total submissions at the annual AAO-HNS meetings from 2000 to 2004. Women more commonly submit poster than oral presentations. The eventual publication rates of abstracts and the average time to publication of presentations are equal between the genders.

The fate of manuscripts rejected by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume)

BACKGROUND

Of the many manuscripts that are submitted to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) (JBJS-A) for publication, the majority are not accepted. However, little is known about the outcome of these rejected submissions. To determine the fate of studies rejected by JBJS-A, we conducted a follow-up investigation of all clinical and basic science manuscripts that were submitted to The Journal between January 2004 and June 2005 but were not accepted.

METHODS

For each rejected manuscript, data were extracted on a wide variety of scientific and nonscientific characteristics, which were plausibly related to subsequent publication. PubMed searches were conducted to determine which manuscripts achieved full publication within five years, and logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with publication. To further elucidate the factors associated with publication, a survey was administered to the corresponding author of each rejected manuscript.

RESULTS

At five years following rejection by JBJS-A, 75.8% (696 of 918) of manuscripts had reached full publication. In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with a higher likelihood of subsequent publication included grade of initial review by JBJS-A (p = 0.029), disclosure of a for-profit or nonprofit conflict of interest (p = 0.028 and 0.027, respectively), and a greater number of prior publications in frequently cited orthopaedic journals by the corresponding author (p < 0.0001). Manuscripts were less likely to reach full publication if the corresponding author was from Asia or the Middle East (p = 0.004) or was a woman (p = 0.003). Among survey respondents who indicated that their study had not yet reached full publication, the most commonly cited reason was lack of time (reported by 51.4% of respondents [thirty-eight of seventy-four]).

CONCLUSIONS

Most manuscripts (75.8%) not accepted by JBJS-A were published elsewhere within five years of rejection. The factors predictive of subsequent publication were primarily investigator-related as opposed to study-related. Given this low threshold for eventual publication, readers are encouraged to use criteria other than inclusion in the PubMed database to identify high-quality papers.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Annual Congress of the Spine Society of Europe (years 2000-2003)

INTRODUCTION

The quality of presentations at medical conferences is of major importance. The publication rate (PR) following congress presentation is an indicator of the extent and quality of a scientific society's activity. The purpose of this study was to investigate publication rates in the Spine Society of Europe (SSE), compare them with the results for American spine societies, and determine factors affecting publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 839 abstracts of podium and poster presentations at SSE congresses held in 2000-2003 were investigated. PRs in peer-reviewed journals within a period of 5 years were assessed. Subgroup analyses were performed for different study types. The consistency of abstracts with publications was also analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall PR was 37.8%, with a mean of 17.7 ± 15.7 months between congress and publication and a mean impact factor of 1.8 ± 1.0 at the time of publication. Comparatively high PRs were found for podium presentations versus posters, studies with higher versus lower levels of evidence, experimental versus clinical studies, prospective versus retrospective studies, randomized versus nonrandomized studies, studies reporting significant main results versus those without, and multicenter studies versus single-center studies. Biomechanical studies also achieved high PRs.

CONCLUSION

The PR was similar to that of NASS (40%) and only slightly inferior to that of SRS (47%) and ISSLS (45%). This shows the high quality of presentations at SSE congresses. The fate of unpublished abstracts is worth further consideration. It is questionable whether it is acceptable to cite abstracts that have not passed a journal's peer-review process and to implement their results in clinical practice.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Annual Congress of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The quality of abstracts presented at medical conferences reflects the scientific activity in the organisations involved. The aims of this study were to evaluate the publication rate of studies presented at the annual congress of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery and to investigate predictive factors for publication. The results were to be compared with other international meetings.

METHOD

All 1,100 abstracts presented at the Congress of the German Society of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery in 2003 were assessed. The publication rate for the corresponding articles in peer-reviewed journals within 5 years was examined using a PubMed search. The consistency of the congress abstracts with the publications was studied. Factors influencing publication rates were investigated, including level of evidence (LoE) and type of study.

RESULTS

The publication rate was 36%, with a mean of 15 months between conference and publication (mean impact factor 1.50). No significant differences were observed between publication rates for oral presentations and posters. Experimental studies and those with LoE I and II had higher publication rates (47.1%; 55.2%; 39.8%) than clinical studies and those with LoE III and IV (30.8%; 29.2%; 28.0%). Abstracts of randomised studies and prospective studies showed publication rates of 43.2 and 35.6% and were published more often than abstracts of non-randomised studies and retrospective studies, with publication rates of 35.3 and 27.1%.

CONCLUSION

The publication rate was in the lower range of rates available for comparable conferences--e.g., the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, with rates between 34 and 55%--but lower than those of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, at 52-67%. However, 64% of the abstracts remained unpublished, calling into question the acceptability of citing conference abstracts in the scientific literature and implementing them in clinical practice.

Enablers and disablers allowing trainees' abstracts to proceed to full manuscripts: lessons from a large neonatal training program

OBJECTIVE

To study trainee and supervisor perspectives for success or failure of conversion of abstracts to full manuscripts.

STUDY DESIGN

Abstracts presented by trainees between 2000 and 2005 were identified from the syllabi of the Paediatric Academic Society, Canadian Paediatric Society and Hot Topics meetings. The trainee and senior supervisor for each abstract were asked to complete a web-based survey that explored enablers and disablers.

RESULT

Of the 187 abstracts identified, 62 (33%) had trainees as primary authors. Of these, the responses of 42 (68%) trainees and 50 (81%) supervisors were collected; the responses of 21 (50%) trainees and 19 (38%) supervisors reported success in converting the abstract to a manuscript. According to trainees, good research idea, supportive supervisors and practical design were the main enablers, whereas limited time for research and the limited data collection only for abstracts were the main disablers. According to supervisors, adequate research time and the trainees' interest were the main enablers, whereas limited data collection and lack of trainees' interest were the main disablers. Specified research training, allocation of protected research time and making publication mandatory were suggested by both to enhance publication rate.

CONCLUSION

Training programs should consider research training needs and provide dedicated time to improve research productivity by trainees.

Full-text publication of abstract-presented work in physical therapy: do therapists publish what they preach?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Professional meetings, such as the American Physical Therapy Association's (APTA's) Combined Sections Meeting (CSM), provide forums for sharing information relevant to physical therapy. An indicator of whether therapists fully disseminate their work is the number of full-text peer-reviewed publications that result. The purposes of this study were: (1) to determine the full-text publication rate of work presented in abstract form at CSM and (2) to investigate factors influencing this rate.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken to locate full-text publications of work presented in abstract form within the Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy sections at CSM between 2000 and 2004. Eligible publications were published within 5 years following abstract presentation. The influences of APTA section, year of abstract presentation, institution of origin, study design, sample size, study significance, reporting of a funding source, and presentation type on full-text publication rate were assessed. Characteristics of full-text publications were explored.

RESULTS

Work presented in 1 out of 4 abstracts (25.4%) progressed to full-text publication. Odds of full-text publication increased if the abstract originated from a doctorate-granting or "other" institution, reported findings of an experimental study, reported a statistically significant finding, included a larger sample size, disclosed a funding source, or was presented as a platform presentation. More than one third (37.8%) of full-text publications were published in the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy or Physical Therapy, and 4 out of 10 full-text publications (39.2%) contained at least one major change from information presented in abstract form.

CONCLUSIONS

The full-text publication rate for information presented in abstract form within the Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy sections at CSM is low relative to comparative disciplines. Caution should be exercised when translating information presented at CSM into practice.

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 rate of abstracts presented at the shoulder and elbow session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

Many shoulder and elbow abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting are cited in the orthopaedic literature or are used to guide orthopaedic practice, but not all of these abstracts are submitted, survive peer review, or eventually are published. Presuming unpublished works have not been scientifically confirmed, one could question whether it is academically responsible to cite abstracts presented at the AAOS before they are peer-reviewed and published. To partly address this issue we determined the peer-reviewed publication rate for 558 abstracts (233 papers and 325 posters) presented at the shoulder and elbow sessions of the AAOS from 1999 to 2004. In April 2007, we searched the computerized database MEDLINE and PubMed for published articles based on these abstracts. We examined the published articles to assess publication rate, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors, and change in conclusions of abstracts. The overall publication rate in peer-reviewed journals was 58% (321 of 558), similar to other orthopaedic meetings and medical disciplines. We believe it is unacceptable to cite shoulder and elbow abstracts submitted to the AAOS because only slightly more than (1/2) (58%) of them are authenticated scientifically.

Identifying key components for an effective case report poster: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Residents demonstrate scholarly activity by presenting posters at academic meetings. Although recommendations from national organizations are available, evidence identifying which components are most important is not.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test an evaluation tool to measure the quality of case report posters and identify the specific components most in need of improvement.

DESIGN

Faculty evaluators reviewed case report posters and provided on-site feedback to presenters at poster sessions of four annual academic general internal medicine meetings. A newly developed ten-item evaluation form measured poster quality for specific components of content, discussion, and format (5-point Likert scale, 1 = lowest, 5 = highest).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Evaluation tool performance, including Cronbach alpha and inter-rater reliability, overall poster scores, differences across meetings and evaluators and specific components of the posters most in need of improvement.

RESULTS

Forty-five evaluators from 20 medical institutions reviewed 347 posters. Cronbach's alpha of the evaluation form was 0.84 and inter-rater reliability, Spearman's rho 0.49 (p < 0.001). The median score was 4.1 (Q1 -Q3, 3.7-4.6)(Q1 = 25th, Q3 = 75th percentile). The national meeting median score was higher than the regional meetings (4.4 vs, 4.0, P < 0.001). We found no difference in faculty scores. The following areas were identified as most needing improvement: clearly state learning objectives, tie conclusions to learning objectives, and use appropriate amount of words.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation tool provides empirical data to guide trainees as they prepare posters for presentation which may improve poster quality and enhance their scholarly productivity.

Is medical research within the UK in decline? A study of publication rates from the British Society of Gastroenterology from 1994 to 2002

A number of reports have suggested that academic medicine within the UK may be in decline. This article assesses the number and outcome of abstracts presented at consecutive British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) meetings. All abstracts presented at the BSG between 1994 and 2002 were assessed (n=4,096). Full publication rates of abstracts were then compared between meetings. Other abstract characteristics were also analysed. There was a significant downward trend demonstrated for the percentage of abstracts going onto full publication (p=0.02). In 1994, 57.6% of abstracts were subsequently fully published but by 2002 this number had fallen to 30.7%. The results show that the number of abstracts at the BSG which are then fully published has fallen with a significant trend. This observation could be taken as an indicator that there is a decline in research activity within the UK gastroenterology community.

The North American Menopause Society: from abstract to publication

OBJECTIVE

The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) provides a forum through which researchers can present scientific abstracts. After presenting an abstract, the goal is to publish the research as a full-length article. The objective for this study was to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at NAMS meetings.

DESIGN

The PubMed database was searched for full-length, peer-reviewed publications, corresponding to the abstracts presented at the 1999 to 2003 NAMS meetings. When a full-length article was found, the title, authors, date of publication, and the journal were collected.

RESULTS

Of the 661 abstracts presented at the five consecutive annual meetings, 253 (38.3%) have been published in peer-reviewed journals. The average time to publication was 2.0 +/- 1.5 years. The average time to publication for oral presentations was 1.7 +/- 1.3 years, and that for poster presentations was 2.0 +/- 1.5 years (P = 0.241). The publication rate of oral presentations was significantly greater than that of poster presentations (57.7% vs 36.5%; P < 0.003). Manuscripts were published in a total of 97 journals, with four (Menopause, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Climacteric, and Maturitas) accounting for 38.3% of the publications.

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage of abstracts published by NAMS is within the range and within a similar time frame compared with other scientific meetings. Oral presentations are more likely to be rapidly published and may therefore be of higher interest and clinical relevance along with sound methodology and results. Menopause contained the most manuscripts, demonstrating a possible preference of submission to the Society's journal.

Publicações indexadas geradas a partir de resumos de congressos de angiologia e cirurgia vascular no Brasil

CONTEXTO: Grande parte da produção científica apresentada em congressos não é publicada. Mesmo nos países do primeiro mundo, os números demonstram que essa perda é expressiva. OBJETIVO: Dimensionar o número de artigos publicados e indexados em bases de dados nacionais e internacionais, a partir dos títulos e autores de temas livres ou painéis dos congressos brasileiros de cirurgia vascular de 2001 e 2003. MÉTODOS: Foram pesquisados os 541 e 567 resumos apresentados, respectivamente, no XXXIV Congresso Brasileiro de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, em 2001 e no XXXV Congresso de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, em 2003. Foi realizada pesquisa computadorizada através dos seguintes instrumentos de busca: Scirus, Bireme, LILACS, SciELO, MEDLINE-PubMed e Biblioteca Cochrane, Google Acadêmico e índices remissivos e onomásticos do Jornal Vascular Brasileiro. Os artigos foram classificados em internacionais ou nacionais e em completos ou modificados. RESULTADOS: Foram encontrados 21 (3,89%) e 49 (8,64%) artigos publicados, a partir dos congressos de 2001 e 2003, respectivamente. A média de publicação dos dois congressos foi de 6,32%. CONCLUSÕES: Os números revelados nessa amostra revelam o quanto a publicação das pesquisas no Brasil é relegada a segundo plano. Muitos trabalhos deixam de ser publicados pela falta de prioridade e tradição em escrever, falta de tempo, empenho e de incentivo.

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.

Studies presented in poster format at the annual meetings of the American Association Of Hip And Knee Surgeons: how do they fare in the peer review process?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the eventual publication rates of poster presentations at the annual meetings of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons from 1996 to 2001 (47%). Common belief expects poster presentations to publish at a lower rate than podium presentations, the latter being typically believed to consist of studies of higher scientific value. We hypothesized that this would lead to a lower incidence of eventual peer-reviewed literature publication for posters. Comparisons from an earlier report confirmed our analysis. Also, poster studies that did survive the peer review process were found in a wide array of journals and were found to publish within a relatively short amount of time (mean, 23.6 +/- 15.7 months).

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 abstract results is based on the magnitude or direction of study results, publication bias may result. Publication bias, in turn, creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the rate at which abstract results are subsequently published in full, and the time between meeting presentation and full publication. To assess the association between study characteristics and full publication.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. Date of most recent search: June 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all reports that examined the subsequent full publication rate of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form. Follow-up of abstracts had to be at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data. We calculated the weighted mean full publication rate and time to full publication. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk and random effects models. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.'Positive' results defined as any 'significant' result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and 'positive' results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30). Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.28; CI 1.09 to 1.49); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.78; CI 1.50 to 2.12); randomized trial study design (RR = 1.24; CI 1.14 to 1.36); and basic research (RR = 0.79; CI 0.70 to 0.89). Higher quality of abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials was also associated with full publication (RR = 1.30, CI 1.00 to 1.71).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.

Publication rates of scientific presentations at the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons annual meetings from 1996 to 2001

National orthopedic subspecialty meetings are a research forum where volumes of investigations are presented after a peer-reviewed selection process. The objective of this investigation was to determine the publication rate of recent scientific presentations presented at the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) annual meetings. From 1996 to 2001, 168 (58%) of 292 podium abstracts presented at meetings were published. The average time to publication was 21.7 +/- 14.7 months. Three major orthopedic journals constituted 89% of the publications. The 58% publication rate for AAHKS ranks as one of the higher rates for orthopedic specialty meetings and validates the selection process for abstracts presented. In addition, AAHKS meetings are an excellent source for a wide array of quality research and scientific information.

Frequency and determinants of nonpublication of research in the stroke literature

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Selective nonpublication will yield publication bias and a published literature imperfectly representative of the full range of scientific findings. We evaluated the proportion of research abstracts presented at the leading United States research meeting in stroke, the International Stroke Conference (ISC), which were subsequently published as full-length articles and investigated the factors associated with full manuscript publication.

METHODS

Features of all abstracts presented at the annual ISC meeting in February 2000 were analyzed. Search of the National Library of Medicine PubMed database and written communication with abstract authors was performed to determine conversion of abstracts to fully published manuscripts over the subsequent 5 years.

RESULTS

Among the 353 abstracts presented at the 2000 International Stroke Conference, 108 were oral presentations and 245 posters. Overall, 202/353 (62.3%) resulted in full-length publications, with a median time to publication of 15 months. In multivariate analysis, factors increasing likelihood of full-length publication were: platform rather than poster presentations (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% CI, 1.6 to 5.5), authors with a university affiliation (OR 2.2, 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.1), and European region of origin (OR 2.2, 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.4), whereas topic concerning community/risk factors decreased the likelihood of publication (OR 0.3, 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.74). Positive results, multicenter collaboration and industry sponsorship did not affect publication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 1 of every 3 abstracts presented at an international stroke meeting was not published as a full manuscript within 5 years. Poster abstracts were less likely to be published in full manuscript form than oral presentations.

Scientific papers presented at the 2000-2001 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) meetings: publication rates during the period 2000-2004

The aim of this study was to investigate the rate at which abstracts orally presented at the ESGAR 2000 and 2001 meetings were published between 2000-2004, and to identify predictive factors of publication. The abstracts of ESGAR meeting presentations were reviewed and classified according to organ, modality, type of design, country of origin of the studies and basic categories of diagnostic or interventional. The presentations were searched for publication in Medline-indexed journals using the PubMed server. The publication rates of the presentations, the time period between the presentation and publication, and the journal in which the article had appeared were investigated. An overall number of 109 publications were found originating from 276 presentations (39.5%). The median and inter-quartile range [IQR] between the abstract presentation and subsequently full publication was 18 months [1.0 -53.0]. The journal with the highest number of derived articles from abstract presentation was European Radiology (n=21, 19.2%). Retrospective studies were found to be more frequently published than prospective studies (p=0.001). The publication rate did not show any statistically significant difference between groups of other classifications. The publication rate of studies orally presented at ESGAR meetings was 39.5%. No specific variable other than the type of design of the studies appeared to influence the publication rate.

Scientific papers presented at the European Congress of Radiology: a two-year comparison

The purpose of this report was to determine the rate at which abstracts orally presented at the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2001 were published in 2001-2005 Medline-indexed journals and to compare publication rates and factors with presentations at the ECR in two different periods (2001 and 2000). Absolute and relative publication rates (APR, RPR) and different publication-related factors were analysed. From 991 abstracts originating from 52 countries, 449 articles (APR 45%) were subsequently published in 125 journals, most frequently in European Radiology (n=79, 18%). Country of origin statistically (p<0.0001) influences subsequent publication of the abstract, with Germany having the highest number of presentations (n=300) and derived articles (n=175, RPR 58%) whereas Sweden had the highest RPR (82%). Interventional and physics studies had the highest RPR (59% and 58%, respectively). The ECR meeting has a very high and stable APR (ECR 2001: 45% vs ECR 2000: 47%), and the journal European Radiology had the larger number of related publications (18% RPR following ECR 2001 compared with 14% from ECR 2000). Germany had the highest number of presentations and publications for both meetings. The highest RPR for ECR 2001 was found in interventional and physics studies whereas chest and cardiac studies had the highest RPR for ECR 2000.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons Annual Meeting

OBJECTIVE

To determine the number of peer-reviewed publications arising from the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS), and to assess urological trainees' attitudes to research in relationship to the pursuit of Specialist Registrar (SpR) training numbers and their perception of academic urology in the UK.

METHODS

Publications resulting from presentations at the annual meetings of the BAUS 2001 and 2002 were searched for using the PubMed database. Variables that might influence the subsequent publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals were analysed. Whether institutions from other countries had similar publication rates to those in the UK was also assessed. SpRs were interviewed about their motivation to convert presentations to publications before and after their appointment to SpR training.

RESULTS

In July 2004, 142 of 449 abstracts presented at BAUS 2001 and 2002 were published, giving a publication rate of approximately 42% on Kaplan-Meier analysis. The rate of publication appeared to continue to the end of the period of searching for publications. The publication rate arising from UK presentations was lower than that from the non-UK presentations (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.15, P = 0.14). Publication rates from podium and poster presentations were similar. Urology journals accounted for 75% of the publications. Of the SpRs evaluated, 83% did research and presented papers to obtain a training number rather than because of an inherent interest to pursue an academic career.

CONCLUSIONS

The conversion rate from BAUS presentation to peer-reviewed publication at 36 months was similar on Kaplan-Meier analysis to that of the American Urological Association (AUA, 38%). Interestingly, the rate of publication from the AUA seems to be faster than from BAUS. In addition, presentations from outside the UK appeared to be published faster than those from the UK. Delegates attending these conferences need to consider this when deciding whether a particular presentation will influence their practice. British urology requires academics who are interested in pursuing high-quality research, and which is presented at major conferences with an intention to publish it in peer-reviewed journals.

Publication of surgical abstracts in full text: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTIONAbstracts presented at national and international scientific meetings are an important educational resource. However, the work is not peer reviewed and little is known about the quality or validity of the presented results and the fate of such abstracts.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis is a retrospective cohort study of abstracts presented to the 1997 annual meeting of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. We examined the rates of full-text publication, time to publication, factors influencing publication, inconsistencies between presented and subsequently published manuscripts, and reasons for non-publication of abstracts.RESULTSOf the 241 abstracts presented, 136 (56.4%) were published at a median duration of 18 months. Multicentre studies had a greater tendency to subsequent publication and studies involving academic centres predicted publication in a high impact factor journal. Inconsistencies between presented and published abstracts were common and were significantly associated with delayed publication. Oral and poster presentations were equally likely to be published. Reasons for non-submission of presented abstracts included lack of time, low priority to publish, perceived methodological limitations, lack of novelty of findings and co-investigators leaving the organisation.CONCLUSIONSMore than half of the work presented at a national surgical meeting in the UK has been subsequently published. Various factors that influence the process of publication and remediable causes for non-publication have been identified.

The consistency between scientific papers presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and their subsequent full-text publication

OBJECTIVES

To determine the consistency of conclusions/statements made in podium presentations at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) with those in subsequent full-text publications. Also, to evaluate the nature and consistency of study design, methods, sample sizes, results and assign a corresponding level of evidence.

DATA SOURCES

Abstracts of the scientific programs of the OTA from 1994 to 1997 (N = 254) were queried by using the PubMed database to identify those studies resulting in a peer-reviewed, full-text publication.

STUDY SELECTION

Of the 169 articles retrieved, 137 studies were the basis of our study after the exclusion criteria were applied: non-English language, basic science studies, anatomic dissection studies, and articles published in non-peer-reviewed journals.

DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS

Information was abstracted onto a data form: first from the abstract published in the final meeting program, and then from the published journal article. Information was recorded regarding study issues, including the study design, primary objective, sample size, and statistical methods. We provided descriptive statistics about the frequency of consistent results between abstracts and full-text publications. The results were recorded as percentages and a 95% confidence interval was applied to each value. Study results were recorded for the abstract and full-text publication comparing results and the overall conclusion. A level of scientific-based evidence was assigned to each full-text publication.

RESULTS

The final conclusion of the study remained the same 93.4% of the time. The method of study was an observational case series 52% of the time and a statement regarding the rate of patient follow-up was reported 42% of the time. Of the studies published, 18.2% consisted of a sample size smaller than the previously presented abstract. When the published papers had their level of evidence graded, 11% were level I, 16% level II, 17% level III, and 56% level IV.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors conclusions were consistent with those in full-text publications. Most studies were observational, less than half reported on the rate of patient follow-up. Many abstracts followed by publication had a smaller sample size in the published paper. Half of all studies were graded level IV evidence.

Publication bias of randomized controlled trials in emergency medicine

OBJECTIVES

To determine the publication status and time to publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) meetings from 1995 to 2003. The impact of positive-outcome bias, time-lag bias, and gray literature bias also was assessed.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of RCT abstracts presented at nine SAEM scientific meetings. Electronic searches identified publications from the abstracts.

RESULTS

Of 4,399 abstracts, 383 (8.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.8% to 9.5%) were identified as RCTs. One hundred ninety-four (50.7%; 95% CI = 45.7% to 55.7%) were subsequently published up to May 2004. The median time to publication was 32 months (95% CI = 23 to 41), with 59% of RCT abstracts published within five years of presentation. No evidence of positive-outcome bias or time-lag bias was identified; however, changes from abstract to manuscript were found. Manuscripts were less likely to endorse the experimental intervention than were abstracts (OR, 0.2; 95% CI = 0.0 to 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of emergency medicine RCT abstracts published is slightly lower than that for other biomedical specialties; however, biases reported by investigators in other biomedical areas do not appear to be as problematic in emergency medicine research. Differences between conclusions from abstracts and manuscripts must be considered when employing meeting abstracts as a source of evidence for future research or for systematic reviews in emergency medicine.

Podium versus poster publication rates at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association

Original studies at orthopaedic meetings are presented on the podium and in poster format. Publication of those studies in peer-reviewed journals is the standard of communicating scientific data to colleagues. Investigators of previous studies have reported publication rates, but never differentiated between the modes of presentation. We evaluated the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association from 1994-1998 and found that studies presented on the podium were 1.3 times more likely to be published than those presented in a poster format (67% versus 52%). The mean time to publication was similar, 21.6 months for poster presentations and 24.8 months for podium presentations. Podium presentations were more likely to be published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American and British editions). Our findings suggest different rates and distribution of publication between podium and poster presentations at an international trauma meeting. These findings should be considered when evaluating studies of interest at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association meeting.

Scientific papers presented at the European Congress of Radiology 2000: publication rates and characteristics during the period 2000-2004

To determine the rate at which abstracts orally presented at the ECR 2000 were published between 2000-2004, and to identify predictive factors of publication and differences between abstracts and subsequently published papers. Specific search profiles were devised to retrieve items from the Medline database. From 1020 abstracts originating from 39 countries, 479 articles (publication rate 47%) were subsequently published in 139 Medline-indexed journals, most frequently in European Radiology (14%). Country of origin statistically (P<0.0001) influences the subsequent publication of the abstract, Germany having the highest number of presentations (n=343) and derived articles (publication rate 54%). Abstracts presented by authors from the USA (n=21) had the highest publication rate (76%). Most papers were published within the first 3 years after the meeting, as original articles and in English-language journals. Both the study sample size and the first author frequently changed. Chest and cardiac studies had the highest publication rates (56%, both). In summary, abstracts presented at the ECR 2000 had a high publication rate in Medline-indexed journals. Country of origin and subspecialty of presentation appeared to influence subsequent full publication. More articles were published in European Radiology than in other journal.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at Biennial Meetings of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine

A study was carried out to determine the fate of abstracts presented at the Biennial Meetings of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Sports Medicine. All abstracts presented at the 1997 and 1999 Biennial Meetings of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Sports Medicine were entered into a database. A Medline search was performed in November 2003 for each abstract to determine whether a full publication resulted from the abstract. The rate of publication and the journals in which they were published were determined. The overall rate of publication from the 1997 and 1999 meetings were 34.6 and 39.3%, respectively. The most common journals for subsequent publication were Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, American Journal of Sports Medicine, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. Research presented in abstract form at scientific meetings provides an early look at ongoing research projects. These abstracts are not subjected to the full peer-review process required of publications in journals. Many of the abstracts presented at the Biennial Meetings of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Sports Medicine did not result in a full journal publication. While it is not possible to determine the reason for abstracts failing to lead to journal publications, it is possible that some of these projects did not meet the scientific scrutiny of the peer-review process required for full publication.

Discrepancies between proceedings abstracts and posters at a scientific meeting

The proceedings handbook of abstracts from scientific meetings aims to provide meeting attendees with an accurate summary of scientific presentations. Given that posters are prepared closer to the meeting than the abstracts for the proceedings book, we hypothesized that there is a high rate of inconsistency between abstracts in the proceedings handbook and the corresponding posters. We compared the poster abstracts printed in the proceedings handbook with the actual posters at the 71st annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 2004. Our comparison included all 50 trauma posters and 52 adult reconstruction knee posters. This comparison revealed discrepancies in 76% of the presented posters. These changes were detected in all parts of the posters including titles (33%), authorship (49%), methods (8%), results (30%), and conclusions (2%). The sample size changed in 15% of the studies. Discrepancies between the trauma posters versus the adult reconstruction knee posters were similar. Our findings suggest that discrepancies between the poster abstracts in the proceedings handbook and actual poster presentations are common, but changes in conclusions are rare. Meeting attendees should not assume that the proceedings handbook provides an accurate reflection of poster presentations. Visiting the poster section is recommended.