Do We Publish What We Present? A Critical Analysis of Abstracts Presented at Three Plastic Surgery Meetings

Conversion Rate of Abstracts Presented at Plastic Surgery The Meeting From 2010 to 2019: A 10-Year Analysis of Factors for Success

BACKGROUND

Presentations are an important means of knowledge generation. Publication of these studies is important for dissemination of findings beyond meeting attendees. We analyzed a 10-year sample of presented abstracts at Plastic Surgery The Meeting and describe factors that improve rate and speed of conversion to peer-reviewed publication.

METHODS

Abstracts presented between 2010 and 2019 at Plastic Surgery The Meeting were sourced from the American Society of Plastic Surgery Abstract Archive. A random sample of 100 abstracts from each year was evaluated. Abstract information and demographics were recorded. The title or author and keywords of each abstract were searched using a standardized workflow to find a corresponding published paper on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google. Data were analyzed for trends and factors affecting conversion rate.

RESULTS

A total of 983 presented abstracts were included. The conversion rate was 54.1%. Residents and fellows constituted the largest proportion of presenters (38.4%). There was a significant increase in medical student and research fellow presenters during the study period (P < 0.001). Conversion rate was not affected by the research rank of a presenter's affiliated institution (β = 1.001, P = 0.89), geographic location (P = 0.60), or subspecialty tract (P = 0.73). US academics had a higher conversion rate (61.8%) than US nonacademics (32.7%) or international presenters (47.1%) (P < 0.001). Medical students had the highest conversion rate (65.6%); attendings had the lowest (45.0%). Research fellows had the lowest average time to publication (11.6 months, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower levels of training, factors associated with increased institution-level support, and research quality affect rate and time to publication. These findings highlight the success of current models featuring medical student and research fellow-led projects with strong resident and faculty mentorship.

Discrepancies between Conference Abstracts and Published Manuscripts in Plastic Surgery Studies: A Retrospective Review

Background

Inconsistency in results and outcomes between presented abstracts and corresponding published articles can negatively affect clinical education and care. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency of clinically meaningful change in results and outcomes between abstracts presented at the American Association of Plastic Surgeons annual conference and the corresponding published articles, and to determine risk factors associated with discrepancies.

Methods

All abstracts delivered as oral presentations at the American Association of Plastic Surgeons conference (2006-2016) were reviewed. Results and outcomes were compared with those in corresponding articles. We defined clinically meaningful discrepancy as any change in the directionality of an outcome, or a quantitative change in results exceeding 10%.

Results

Four hundred eighty-six abstracts were identified. Of these, 63% (N = 305) advanced to publication. Of the published studies, 19% (N = 59) contained a discrepancy. In 85% of these (N = 50), discrepancies could not be explained by random variation. Changes in sample size were associated with heightened risk for a discrepancy (OR 10.38, 95% CI 5.16-20.86, P < 0.001). A decrease in sample size greater than 10% increased the likelihood of a discrepancy by 25-fold (OR 24.92, 95% CI 8.66-71.68, P < 0.001), whereas an increase in sample size greater than 10% increased the likelihood of a discrepancy by eight-fold (OR 8.36, CI 3.69-19.00, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Most discrepancies between abstract and published article were not due to random statistical variation. To mitigate the possible impact of unreliable abstracts, we recommend abstracts be marked as preliminary, that authors indicate whether sample size is final at time of presentation, and that changes to previously reported results be indicated in final publications.

Gender Disparity in Abstract Presentation at Plastic Surgery Meetings

BACKGROUND

Medical and surgical fields continue to be marred by gender disparities. The "leaky pipeline" effect, representing a gradual decline in female representation along the academic ladder, has been well documented in plastic surgery. However, gender differences in abstract presentation at national plastic surgery meetings and subsequent publications remains elusive.

METHODS

We reviewed abstracts presented at the 2014 and 2015 annual meetings of the American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS); American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), and the Plastic Surgery Research Council (PSRC). Several abstract characteristics including the names of the first and last authors were extracted. Genderize.io and Google search were used to identify the authors' gender.

RESULTS

We identified 1174 abstracts presented at the three identified meetings. Females comprised 29% of the presenters and 16% of abstract senior authors (ASAs). No gender differences were identified between the meetings, type of presentation (oral versus poster), and year of presentation. The only difference was in the subspecialty of the abstracts. Successful conversion to full-text articles was similar for male and female presenters (68% versus 62%, P = 0.065) but higher for male ASAs (68% versus 59%, P = 0.01). When an author change occurred, female presenters and ASAs were more likely to be replaced by males (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Gender differences continue to be evident in academic plastic surgery with women constituting a minority of both presenters and senior authors on abstracts presented at national plastic surgery meetings. Future work should assess whether flexible and supportive work policies can foster greater female representation in academic plastic surgery.