Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the 2006 Meeting of the American Academy of Optometry

Frequency of Abstracts Presented at Eye and Vision Conferences Being Developed Into Full-Length Publications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Conference proceedings are platforms for early communication and dissemination of relevant and timely topics of interest. More than half of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences fail to be published in full, resulting in wasted time and resources.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review reports evaluating the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences that are subsequently published in full and investigate factors associated with publication.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and reference lists of included reports were systematically searched from inception to January 11, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Reports that examined the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals 24 or more months later.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, abstracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the proportion of abstracts published in full and assess factors associated with subsequent full publication.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences subsequently published in full.

RESULTS

There were 19 reports covering 12 261 abstracts presented at 11 unique eye and vision conferences. The overall risk of bias of the reports was low. The weighted proportion of abstracts published in full was 38.0% (95% CI, 31.7%-44.3%) and 54.9% (95% CI, 34.6%-73.7%) among reports restricted to abstracts describing randomized clinical trials. Nine reports (47.4%) investigated the proportion of abstracts subsequently published by ophthalmic subspecialties, ranging from 28.3% (oculoplastics: 95% CI, 17.2%-42.9%) to 42.7% (glaucoma: 95% CI, 34.7%-51.0%). Oral presentation (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.76) and basic science (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.47) were significantly associated with higher full publication; factors not significantly associated with full publication included positive results, randomized clinical trial vs other study design, multicenter study, and industry funding.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

More than 60% of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences were not published in full within 2 years of conference presentation. Failure to disseminate research studies in peer-reviewed journals is not desired, especially when involving human participants.

Characteristics and trends in publications of abstracts presented at the Canadian Ophthalmological Society Annual Meetings: 2010-2015

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) Annual Meetings from 2010 to 2015.

DESIGN

A retrospective review and literature search of abstracts presented at the COS Annual Meetings from 2010 to 2015.

METHODS

Abstracts were obtained from the scientific programs for the 2010-2015 COS meetings, excluding 2014 (data unavailable). Title, author number, presentation type, subspecialty, institution, and study design were collected. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched in duplicate using abstract title, key words, and authors. Publication date, journal, impact factor, and citation score were recorded for each publication. Publication rates were determined by year of abstract presentation, presentation type, study type, subspecialty, author number, institution, and time to publication.

RESULTS

876 abstracts were presented, of which 326 (37.3%) were posters and 548 (62.7%) were oral presentations. The publication rate was 42.9% (375 publications) with a 16-month median time to publication. The publication rate did not vary significantly by presentation type or year. Publication rates were highest among vision rehabilitation (75.0%) and glaucoma (52.0%) subspecialties; basic science research (65.0%) and systematic reviews/meta analyses (62.0%) study designs had the highest representation. Most presentations were published in the Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology (117 presentations, 31.2%). The mean impact factor and citation score for published abstracts were 2.39 ± 2.3 and 1.70 ± 1.16, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate of abstracts presented at the COS Annual Meetings has remained stable across this 5-year analysis. Publication rates are comparable to those of other specialty conferences.

Publishing Conversion Rates and Trends in Abstracts Presented at the American Association for Hand Surgery Annual Meeting: A Five-Year Review

Background: Abstract presentation at scientific meetings grants attendees early access to innovation within the field, and ultimate journal publication serves as marker of research quality. This study aims to assess the publication conversion rate of abstracts presented at the American Association for Hand Surgery (AAHS) annual conference over 5 years and examine variables related to publication. Methods: Abstract information for oral and poster presentations from the 2012 to 2016 AAHS annual meetings was obtained through the AAHS website. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for journal publications correlating with abstracts based on titles, authors, and key words. Variables analyzed included study type, time to publication, and journal of publication. Results: In all, 1135 abstracts were reviewed from the 5-year period, consisting of 535 oral presentations and 600 posters. Overall, 532 articles (47%) were published. The publication conversion rate was 49% for oral presentations and 45% for posters. Mean time to publication was 11 months, with most publications occurring within 2 years (87%). The most common journals for publication were Journal of Hand Surgery (30%), HAND (21%), and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (7%). Conclusions: About half of the studies presented at the annual AAHS meeting become published, with similar rates between oral and poster formats. Most of the successful abstracts achieved publication within 2 years from presentation, demonstrating the need for timely completion of manuscripts. The publication conversion rate increased in recent years, emphasizing the continued improvement of the scientific quality of presentations at the AAHS meeting.

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.

Trends in the quality of work presented at the society of british neurological surgeons meetings: 1975 to 2010

BACKGROUND

The quality of scientific publications in clinical journals is well studied but the quality of work presented at medical conferences less so.

AIMS

To describe trends in the quality of presentations at the Society of British Neurological Surgeons [SBNS] conference between 1975 and 2010 and the factors associated with higher quality work in order to consider what might improve publication rates.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted in 5-year time periods (i.e. 1975-1979, 1985-1989, 1995-1999, 2005-2009). Published abstracts were used to identify conference presentations. Quality metrics included level of evidence of the presentation and eventual publication within 5 years. Publication 5-year citation count and destination journal impact factor were further used to assess publication quality. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS.

RESULTS

Of the 1711 presentations in total, 479 (28%) were published. The British Journal of Neurosurgery (93, 19%) was the favoured destination. Although the total number of publications has increased, given the increase in the number of presentations, the proportion of work published has decreased (80/179; 45% in the 1970s to 113/721; 16% in the 2000s). The growth in the impact factor of published work was better than that found in leading neurosurgical journals, but lower than for leading medical journals. In a multivariate model, presentations using a higher level of evidence increased the likelihood of publication (AOR 6.7 95% CI 3.7, 12.1), whilst presenting at conferences after the 1970s reduced the likelihood of publication; 1985-1989 (AOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2, 0.4), 1995-1999 (0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.7) and 2005-2009 (0.1, 95% CI 0.1, 0.2).

CONCLUSION

SBNS conferences today contain more presentations and yield more publications than ever before. However, the increased volume may dilute the quality of work presented.

Publication Rates for Oral Manuscript and Poster Presentations From the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons: 2010 to 2014

The American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) annual conference has served as a premiere platform to disseminate the latest innovations and research in the field of foot and ankle surgery. The quality of national society conferences is often assessed indirectly by analyzing the the journal publication rate of the abstracts presented. The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the journal publication rate for abstracts (oral manuscripts and posters) accepted for presentation at the ACFAS conference from 2010 to 2014. All accepted abstracts from this period were compiled by the ACFAS office. PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus searches were performed using abstract titles and author names. Overall, the journal publication rate was 76.9% (83 of 108) for oral manuscripts and 23.2% (258 of 1113) for poster abstracts. The mean time to publication was 9.6 (range 0 to 44) months and 19.8 (range 0 to 66) months for oral and poster abstracts, respectively. The most common journal for abstract publication was The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. Notably, the ACFAS oral manuscript publication rate from 2010 to 2014 (76.9%) exceeded its previously reported rate from 1999 to 2008 (67.5%) and the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society podium publication rate from 2008 to 2012 (73.7%). To the best of our knowledge, the publication incidence for oral abstracts presented at the ACFAS conference is now the highest reported of any national foot and ankle society conference to date.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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