When will I see you again? The fate of research findings from international wound care conferences*

Changes in scientific characteristics of abstracts accepted to the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, 1990-2020

OBJECTIVES

Since its founding in 1989, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) has accepted thousands of abstracts for presentation at its annual meeting. We reviewed abstracts to characterize temporal changes in study design, abstract topics, quality scores, and proportion of abstracts published as manuscripts.

METHODS

In this serial cross-sectional study, we compiled accepted SAEM abstracts at 5-year intervals (1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020) and then randomly selected 100 abstracts from each year for review by two investigators. We documented each abstract's study design, sample size, and whether it was a single-center or multicenter study. We assigned each abstract to the most appropriate topic category. Applying SAEM's abstract scoring system from 2020, we calculated the mean overall quality score per year. Finally, we searched PubMed to determine if abstracts from 1990-2015 meetings were published as manuscripts.

RESULTS

The number of accepted abstracts increased from 180 in 1990 to 879 in 2020 (+388%). The most common study design changed from laboratory study in 1990 (22%) to cohort study in 2020 (44%; p < 0.001). The median study sample size increased over time, from 105 (interquartile range [IQR] 25-389) in 1990 to 544 (IQR 102-2067) in 2020 (p < 0.001). Multicenter studies have become more common (19% in 1990 vs. 40% in 2020; p = 0.001). The most common topic categories also changed from cardiology/pulmonary/airway (40%) and orthopedic/trauma/burn (17%) in 1990 to health services research/health policy/operations (25%) and cardiology/pulmonary/airway (22%) in 2020. There was a 20% increase in overall quality scores (p < 0.001). Between 37% and 49% of the abstracts reviewed from each year were later published as manuscripts, with no significant change over time (p = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 30 years, there have been significant changes to the study designs, topics, and quality scores of SAEM meeting abstracts. However, conversion of abstracts to published manuscripts remains a challenge.

Towards User-Oriented Recommendations for Local Therapy of Leg and Foot Ulcers-An Update of a S3-German Guideline

Background: The German S3- guideline on local therapy of leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers is in the process of being updated. Major goals are to improve the guidelines’ applicability and to take steps towards a living guideline according to current methodological standards. The aim of this article is to describe the main measures to achieve these goals. Methods: The context of the guideline in the field of local wound care and the stakeholder requirements are briefly described. Based on a derived framework, the project team adjusted the methods for the guideline. Results: Main adjustments are more specific inclusion criteria, online consensus meetings and the use of an authoring and publication platform to provide information in a multi-layered format. A new set of practice-oriented key questions were defined by the guideline panel to foster the formulation of action-oriented recommendations. Conclusions: The set of new key questions addressing practical problems and patients’ preferences as well as the adjustments made to improve not only the guidelines’ applicability, but also the feasibility of the further dynamic updating processes in the sense of a living guideline, should be steps in the right direction.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.

Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Integration of Chiropractic Services in Military and Veteran Health Care Facilities: A Systematic Review of the Literature

This literature review examined studies that described practice, utilization, and policy of chiropractic services within military and veteran health care environments. A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature was performed from inception through April 2015. Thirty articles met inclusion criteria. Studies reporting utilization and policy show that chiropractic services are successfully implemented in various military and veteran health care settings and that integration varies by facility. Doctors of chiropractic that are integrated within military and veteran health care facilities manage common neurological, musculoskeletal, and other conditions; severe injuries obtained in combat; complex cases; and cases that include psychosocial factors. Chiropractors collaboratively manage patients with other providers and focus on reducing morbidity for veterans and rehabilitating military service members to full duty status. Patient satisfaction with chiropractic services is high. Preliminary findings show that chiropractic management of common conditions shows significant improvement.

Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: reporting standards

In wound care research, available high-level evidence according to the evidence pyramid is rare, and is threatened by a poor study design and reporting. Without comprehensive and transparent reporting, readers will not be able to assess the strengths and limitations of the research performed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are universally acknowledged as the study design of choice for comparing treatment effects. To give high-level evidence the appreciation it deserves in wound care, we propose a step-by-step reporting standard for comprehensive and transparent reporting of RCTs in wound care. Critical reporting issues (e.g., wound care terminology, blinding, predefined outcome measures, and a priori sample size calculation) and wound-specific barriers (e.g., large diversity of etiologies and comorbidities of patients with wounds) that may prevent uniform implementation of reporting standards in wound care research are addressed in this article. The proposed reporting standards can be used as guidance for authors who write their RCT, as well as for peer reviewers of journals. Endorsement and application of these reporting standards may help achieve a higher standard of evidence and allow meta-analysis of reported wound care data. The ultimate goal is to help wound care professionals make better decisions for their patients in clinical practice.

Does evidence permeate all surgical areas equally? Publication trends in wound care compared to breast cancer care: a longitudinal trend analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based decision making has permeated the daily practice of healthcare professionals. However, in wound care this seems more difficult than in other medical areas, such as breast cancer, which has a similar incidence, variety of etiologies, financial burden, and diversity of treatment options. This incongruence could be due to a lack in quantity and quality of available evidence. We therefore compared worldwide publication trends to answer whether research in wound care lags behind that in breast cancer.

METHODS

In order to assess the trends in quantity and methodological quality of publications as to wound care and breast cancer treatments, we examined relevant publications over the last five decades. Publications in MEDLINE were classified into seven study design categories: (1) guidelines, (2) systematic reviews (SR), (3) randomized (RCT), and controlled clinical trials (CCT), (4) cohort studies, (5) case-control studies, (6) case series and case reports, and (7) other publications.

RESULTS

We found a 30-fold rise in publications on wound care, versus a 70-fold increase in those on breast cancer. High-quality study designs like SR, RCT, or CCT were less frequent in wound care (difference 1.9, 95 % CI 1.8-2.0 %) as were guidelines; 76 on wound care versus 231 for breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Publications on wound care fall behind in quantity and quality as compared to breast cancer. Nevertheless, SR, RCT, and CCT in wound care are becoming more numerous. These high-quality study designs could motivate clinicians to make evidence-based decisions and researchers to perform proper research in wound care.

Is physical activity contraindicated for individuals with scoliosis? A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature and other authoritative sources for recommendations regarding the appropriateness of physical and sporting activity for those with scoliosis.

METHODS

The literature was systematically searched in PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse from the earliest date of each database through July 2008. All languages and research designs were included. Web sites of respected organizations were searched for position/white papers on scoliosis and physical activity. Included articles were rated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria, and recommendations for physical activity were made using the Oxford Centre's criteria for grades of recommendation.

RESULTS

Of 42 articles retrieved, 11 met the inclusion criteria. The Internet review of 18 organizations yielded no previous guidelines or position papers for physical activity and scoliosis. Recommendations were made from 3 level 3b studies and 8 level 5 studies; they include the following: (1) brace-treated and surgically treated scoliosis patients have demonstrated that they can physically participate in physical activities at the same level as nonsurgical patients (grade C recommendation); (2) nonsurgically treated patients are encouraged to participate in sports and physical activity and (3) scoliosis is not a contraindication to participation in most sports (grade D recommendation); (4) brace-treated scoliosis patients are encouraged to exercise with their brace on; however, exercise may also be done outside of the brace (grade D recommendation); and (5) physical activity may be commenced after surgery for scoliosis; however, no high-quality evidence exists that guides the timing of return to physical activity (grade D recommendation). A potential association between elite-level competition in specific sports at an early age and an increased prevalence of scoliosis has been reported (grade C recommendation).

CONCLUSION

This article offers evidence-based guidance to health care providers and to patients with scoliosis when making decisions to participate in physical and sporting activities.

Chiropractic practice in military and veterans health care: The state of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To summarize scholarly literature that describes practice, utilization, and/or policy of chiropractic services within international active duty and/or veteran health care environments.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from their starting dates through June 2009.

REVIEW METHODS

All authors independently reviewed each of the articles to verify that each met the inclusion criteria. Citations of included papers and other pertinent findings were logged in a summary table.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included in this study. Integration of chiropractic care into military or veteran health care systems has been described in 3 systems: the United States Department of Defense, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Canadian Forces.

CONCLUSION

Chiropractic services seem to be included successfully within military and veteran health care facilities. However, there is a great need for additional written evaluation of the processes, policies, practices, and effectiveness of chiropractic services in these environments.