Discrepancies and rates of publication in orthopaedic sports medicine abstracts

The fate of the abstract: presentation and publication characteristics of abstracts presented at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Annual Scientific Meetings 2013-2020

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate what proportion of abstracts presented at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) Annual Scientific Meetings went on to be published in publicly available journals.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study SETTING: Single organization PARTICIPANTS: Abstracts (oral presentations, oral posters, video presentations, non-oral posters) presented at the SGS Annual Scientific Meeting from 2013-2020 INTERVENTIONS: Variables were collected pertaining to abstract authors, study type, timing of the session presented, and journal factors. To identify possible publication, abstracts were cross-referenced in PubMed and Google Scholar.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 912 abstracts were reviewed: 155 oral presentations, 184 oral posters, 79 video presentations, and 490 non-oral posters. 45.8% of abstracts went on to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Most abstracts (75.0%) were published from institutions with a fellowship presence and at a university-based program (71.5%). The five most represented institutions presented 27.5% of all abstracts during an SGS session. Oral presentations were more likely than oral posters to be structured as randomized controlled trials (20% vs 9%, p=.028), and to be published in a journal with a higher impact factor (6.36 ± 11.74 vs. 3.88 ± 2.72, p=.031). Type of presentation and fellowship presence significantly affected the likelihood of abstract publication (oral presentation OR 0.73, 95% CI [0.466, 1.141], p=0.167; video OR 0.14, 95% CI [0.075, 0.261; non-oral poster OR 0.30, 95% CI [0.204, 0.439]; p<.001; fellowship OR 1.62, 95% CI [1.167, 2.237], p=.004).

CONCLUSION

Over eight years of the SGS Annual Scientific Meeting, the rate of abstract publication was 45.8%. Abstract origination from an academic institution with a fellowship program significantly affected the likelihood of publication. Abstract presentation at a society meeting is a prestigious opportunity, and prioritization of resources and elimination of barriers should be encouraged to further promote progression of these projects to publication.

Reporting quality of abstracts and inconsistencies with full text articles in pediatric orthopedic publications

BACKGROUND

Abstracts should provide a brief yet comprehensive reporting of all components of a manuscript. Inaccurate reporting may mislead readers and impact citation practices. It was our goal to investigate the reporting quality of abstracts of interventional observational studies in three major pediatric orthopedic journals and to analyze any reporting inconsistencies between those abstracts and their corresponding full-text articles.

METHODS

We selected a sample of 55 abstracts and their full-text articles published between 2018 and 2022. Included articles were primary therapeutic research investigating the results of treatments or interventions. Abstracts were scrutinized for reporting quality and inconsistencies with their full-text versions with a 22-itemized checklist. The reporting quality of titles was assessed by a 3-items categorical scale.

RESULTS

In 48 (87%) of articles there were abstract reporting inaccuracies related to patient demographics. The study's follow-up and complications were not reported in 21 (38%) of abstracts each. Most common inconsistencies between the abstracts and full-text articles were related to reporting of inclusion or exclusion criteria in 39 (71%) and study correlations in 27 (49%) of articles. Reporting quality of the titles was insufficient in 33 (60%) of articles.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study we found low reporting quality of abstracts and noticeable inconsistencies with full-text articles, especially regarding inclusion or exclusion criteria and study correlations. While the current sample is likely not representative of overall pediatric orthopedic literature, we recommend that authors, reviewers, and editors ensure abstracts are reported accurately, ideally following the appropriate reporting guidelines, and that they double check that there are no inconsistencies between abstracts and full text articles. To capture essential study information, journals should also consider increasing abstract word limits.

Reporting inconsistency between published conference abstracts and article abstracts of randomised controlled trials in prosthodontics presented at IADR general sessions

Background

There is commonly a discrepancy between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may mislead the scholars those attend conferences.

Objective

To identify the characteristics predicting inconsistency between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic RCTs.

Methods

The conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at the IADR general sessions from 2002 to 2015 were searched. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were conducted to match full-text publications for conference abstracts. Two investigators extracted basic characteristics and assessed the consistency and reporting quality independently and in duplicate. The linear regression model was used to analyze the predictors of inconsistency.

Results

A total of 147 conference abstracts were matched with published articles. Results for the secondary outcome measure, Statistical analysis, and precision measure were less than 50% consistent, and even nearly 5% of the studies had opposite conclusions. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that three factors were correlated with lower inconsistency, including continent of origin (p = 0.011), presentation type (p = 0.017), and difference in reporting quality (p = 0.013).

Conclusion

Conference attendees should cautiously treat the findings of the conference abstracts. Researchers should improve the precision of the information delivered at conferences. We recommend the authors of RCTs to explain the primary difference between conference abstracts and article abstracts.

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.

Intelligent Recognition of Sports Players' Wrong Actions in view of Computer Pattern Recognition

In the context of the vigorous development of the sports industry and rapid technological innovation, the wrong actions of sports athletes can also be intelligently recognized. Human action recognition based on computer pattern recognition is becoming more and more popular and ubiquitous in life. This article aims to study how to recognize the human body based on the computer model and how to apply intelligent recognition to the wrong actions of sports athletes. The study of the application of intelligent recognition to the wrong actions of sports athletes is of great significance to sports athletes. This article proposes how to intelligently recognize the wrong actions of sports athletes based on computer pattern recognition. In the experiment in this article, wrong sports actions can cause a series of undesirable consequences, such as joint sprains and muscle damage. Among them, the proportion of joint damage caused by wrong actions has reached 24% and has been rising with the increase of the number of experiments and finally reached 35%, which shows that the probability is still very high. After the pull-up adopts intelligent recognition, the error of the pull-up action can be quickly identified and corrected in time, with the correct rate reaching 78%. Therefore, in order to reduce the physical damage caused by sports athletes' wrong movements, it is necessary to study the intelligent recognition of sports athletes' wrong movements. The recognition of wrong actions of sports athletes can be carried out through intelligent recognition based on 3D convolutional neural networks, which is of great significance to intelligent recognition.

Conference abstracts-what gets published, when, and from where?

BACKGROUND

Scientific meetings provide a platform for disseminating new research. Abstracts presented at these meetings are frequently published as full-length papers in peer-reviewed journals. The primary aims of this study were to determine the publication rate and time to publication of abstracts presented at the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) and World Federation of Orthodontists (WFO) congresses in 2015. The secondary aim was to identify factors predicting the publication of abstracts.

METHODS

The congress abstracts were identified from the congress report or organizers. Systematic searches of the PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed to identify papers based on the abstracts identified. Abstract titles, first and last authors' last name, and keywords were used to identify whether an abstract resulted in a publication. Abstracts published as full-length articles were then analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 208 abstracts were identified, of which 46.6% were published as full-length articles. The median time to publication was 17 months after the EOS congress, and 8.5 months after the WFO congress. Abstracts presented orally were more likely to be published than those presented as posters. Abstracts from Europe were more likely to result in publication. The subject and setting of the study were poor predictors of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the abstracts presented at the EOS and WFO congresses in 2015 led to full publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The mode of presentation and the region of origin of the research were good predictors of publication.

Publication outcome of research presented at the European Congress of Endocrinology: a web scraping-based analysis and critical appraisal

PURPOSE

The current study aimed to determine the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the 16th European Congress of Endocrinology (ECE 2014).

METHODS

All presentations were collected with the web scraping - Python coding from the official website and converted into Google Scholar and PubMed search links with coding. A particular interface was coded to evaluate the results. An online survey was sent to the authors to assess the impact of congress on their publication.

RESULTS

A total of 1205 abstracts from 71 countries were featured at the congress of which, 1145 (95%) were poster presentations (PP), and 60 (5%) were oral presentations. Subsequently, 341 abstracts (28.3%) were published as a full paper. There was no major change from the abstract in 73.3% of full articles whereas 68.9% had at least one minor change. OP had higher conversion rates to publication than PP (65% vs 26.4; p = 0.01) and a higher median number of citations than PP (12 vs 6; p = 0.01). The median time to publication was 12 months (IQR: 2-24 months). OP was published in journals with a higher median impact factor (IF) than PP (5 vs 2.94; p = 0.01). Multi-country collaborative studies turned into more publications than single-country studies (OR: 3.91 95% CI: 2.52-6.06; p < 0.01). The congress's potential IF was calculated as 3.18. Among the authors responded to survey, 95% indicated that presenting at the congress was valuable for preparation of their publication.

CONCLUSIONS

This first study evaluating the publication outcome of an international endocrinology congress suggests a 28.3% publication ratio with low discrepancy and 3.18 IF for ECE 2014.

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society Annual Meeting From 2008 to 2017

BACKGROUND

Conference abstracts serve an important role in the timely dissemination of scientific and clinical advancements, but most fail to be published. The goal of this study was to investigate the publication rate and factors associated with publication of abstracts presented at the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society (NANOS) Annual Meeting over a 10-year period.

METHODS

NANOS Annual Meeting abstracts from 2008 to 2017 were extracted and categorized into Walsh presentations, scientific platforms, or poster presentations. An original automated web scraping program was validated to search PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Google Scholar for publications. Publication date, journal, authors, study type, multicenter involvement, and financial disclosures were retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 195 Walsh presentations, 231 scientific platform presentations, and 1735 scientific posters were included in the study with an overall publication rate of 31.5% (681/2,161). This was stable over the study period. Publication was the highest for scientific platforms (67.1%), followed by Walsh abstracts (36.4%) and poster presentations (27.2%). Multivariable analysis identified 3-4 authors, 5 or more authors, basic science, and sample size of 100 or more significantly correlated with subsequent publication. The top 3 countries for NANOS submissions were the United States, Canada, and South Korea, and the most frequent journal of publication was the Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication rate of NANOS abstracts is comparable to other conferences in ophthalmology and the neurological sciences. Conference attendees should be aware that more than two-thirds of abstracts fail to be published and publication rates vary widely by type of submission.

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.

Abstracts presented at the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) Congresses: Publication fate and discrepancies with full-length articles

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the full publication proportion (FPP) of abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 EAO Congresses, analyse the discrepancies between abstracts and their full publications, and explore potential predictors of FPP and discrepancies.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 EAO Congresses were retrieved. Associated full publications were identified by searching PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar. Discrepancies between abstracts and full publications were identified, classified and evaluated using a discrepancy score. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to describe cumulative FPP over time. Predictors for FPP and the discrepancy score were analysed using cox regression modelling and a linear regression model, respectively.

RESULTS

850 abstracts were included. The overall FPP was 36.4% with a median time lapse of 12 months. Higher FPP were significantly associated with oral presentation (HR=2.33; 95% CI: 1.68 to 3.22; p<0.001), multiple affiliations (HR =1.32; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.73; p=0.048) and presence of statistical tests (HR =1.78; 95% CI: 1.36 to 2.32; p<0.001). 91.3% pairs had at least one minor change from the abstract and 70.9% had at least one major change. Greater discrepancy score was significantly associated with longer time lapse (B=0.06; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.08; p<0.001) and being clinical research (B=1.30; 95% CI: 0.52 to 2.08; p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-six percent of abstracts presented at the EAO Congresses were published. Among these, more than two-thirds showed at least one major change in their full publications. Abstracts presented in oral implantology conferences should not be relied upon to inform practice.

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.

The Proportion of Abstracts Presented at the 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting Ultimately Published

As attendees of orthopedic meetings consider how to integrate presented information into their practice, it is helpful to consider the quality of the data presented. One surrogate metric is the proportion of and changes to presented abstracts that become journal publications. With this study, using the 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting abstracts, the authors sought to answer the following questions: Did the publications following abstract presentations differ in terms of the conclusions, study subjects, or coauthors? What proportion of abstracts was published? What are the most common subtopics and journals, and what is the most common author country? Keywords and authors from the 2010 AAOS Annual Meeting proceedings program (698 podium and 548 poster abstracts) were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. If a publication resulted, differences in the conclusion, number of study subjects, and authorship between the abstract and the journal publication were tabulated. The proportion of abstracts published, specialty subtopics, authorship country, and journals of publication were collected. At journal publication, 1.7% of podium and 1.7% of poster conclusions changed. Mean number of authors for podium and poster increased significantly (P<.001), and 30% of podium and 44% of poster had a change in the number of study subjects. The overall journal publication percentage was 61% (68% podium and 53% poster). The majority of the authors were from the United States. The most common journal was The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. It is important to evaluate the usefulness and clinical applicability of meetings, especially the final disposition of conference abstracts, from various angles to ensure that they are as worthwhile and educational as possible. [Orthopedics. 2020;xx(x):xx-xx.].

High Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at Lumbar Spine Research Society Meetings

Background

Although publication rates from multiple orthopedic research conferences have been published in the literature, the publication rates of abstracts presented at the Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS) meetings have never been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the publication rates from the LSRS annual meeting years 2008-2012 and then to compare those rates with that of other spine research society meetings.

Methods

Podium presentations from 2008 to 2012 and poster presentations from 2010 to 2012 were reviewed. For each presentation, a PubMed search was performed to determine if a full-text publication existed. χ² tests were used to compare LSRS publication rates to those of other spine meetings. In addition, impact of published articles was evaluated by average citation count and average journal impact factor.

Results

From 2008 to 2012, a total of 332 podium and poster presentations were identified. The overall publication rate was 55.1% (183/332). For podium presentations, this was greatest in 2012 (66.0%) and lowest in 2008 (51.5%). For poster presentations, this was greatest in 2012 (53.6%) and lowest in 2010 (25.0%). The publication rate of presentations is statistically greater than the publication rates of Eurospine (37.8%, P < .001), North American Spine Society (40.0%, P < .001), The International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (45.0%, P = .012), and the Scoliosis Research Society (47.0%, P = .042) but not statistically different than that of Cervical Spine Research Society (65.7%, P = .059). In addition, the average citation count per published article categorized by year ranged from 13 to 31. The average journal impact factor of published articles categorized by year ranged from 2.31 to 2.55.

Conclusions

While LSRS is a relatively young society, these findings point to the high quality of presentations at this scientific meeting. These findings speak to the scientific rigor of presentations at LSRS.

Clinical Relevance

This study helps clinicians and scientists gauge the quality of a research meeting and make informed choices on which gatherings to attend.

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.

Rate of conversion of reports presented at the Turkish Society of Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy and Knee Surgery Congress into publication

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the conversion rate of oral and poster presentations into publications presented at four consecutive congresses held by the Turkish Society of Sports Injuries and Arthroscopy between 2008 and 2014 and to determine the publication pattern.

METHODS

The manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals were identified using the Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Google Scholar databases, ULAKBIM, and Endnote citation management software (X7.7.1). The identified manuscripts were classified according to the level of evidence, number of citations, subject, publication journals, time period until publication, and citation index of the journal.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2014, a total of 561 presentations were made, comprising 278 posters and 283 oral presentations. Of these presentations, 164 (29.2%) were published as a manuscript. Of the published articles, 114 were originated from oral presentations (40.2% of total) and 50 from poster presentations (18% of total). A significantly higher number of oral presentations compared to poster presentations were converted into publications (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was determined between the conversion rates of oral and poster presentations in 2014. The mean time from presentation at the congress to publication was 15.4 months (range: -144 months to +62 months). The mean impact factor of the journals at the time of publication increased for each congress. Evidence level of presented articles was significantly higher in the 2014 congress when compared to previous congresses.

CONCLUSION

The rate of conversion into publication was higher for oral presentations, which can be attributed to the fact that studies with a higher level of evidence are more likely to have been presented as oral presentations. Based on these study results, authors of oral presentations at congresses should be encouraged to increase the rate of conversion into 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.

An In-Depth Analysis of Publication Characteristics of Podium Presentations at the Arthroscopy Association of North America Annual Meetings, 2011-2014

PURPOSE

To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) from 2011 through 2014 and to compare the level of evidence (LoE) between published and unpublished studies.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar for all abstracts given as podium presentations at the 2011 through 2014 AANA Annual Meetings. A publication rate was calculated from all presented abstracts. Each abstract was reviewed to determine the study's LoE (I-V or nonclinical). Among published studies, the average time from presentation to publication was calculated. The journals in which these studies were published were also noted.

RESULTS

A total of 290 abstracts were given as podium presentations at AANA Annual Meetings from 2011 through 2014. Of the 290 studies presented, 195 (195/290, 67%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. Of the 195 published studies, 184 (184/195, 94%) were published within 3 years of the meeting date. Studies were most frequently published in Arthroscopy (n = 59) and the American Journal of Sports Medicine (n = 48). The average time from presentation to publication was 12.2 months. Overall, there was no significant difference between published and unpublished studies in terms of LoE (P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, studies presented at AANA Annual Meetings have achieved a high publication rate (67%). Based on other studies, this publication rate is comparable to recent American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) Annual Meetings and is higher than that of AANA Annual Meetings from previous years. The level of evidence of presented studies does not necessarily correlate with eventual publication.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The publication rate and level of evidence of podium presentations at AANA demonstrate the scientific impact the annual meeting has for peers pursuing orthopaedic research.

Progress in the Full-Text Publication Rate of Orthopaedic and Sport Physical Therapy Abstracts Presented at the American Physical Therapy Association's Combined Sections Meeting

Study Design Descriptive study. Background Professional meetings, such as the American Physical Therapy Association's (APTA's) Combined Sections Meeting (CSM), provide forums for sharing information. However, it was reported that only one-quarter of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy abstracts presented at the CSM between 2000 and 2004 went on to full-text publication. This low conversion rate raises a number of concerns regarding the full dissemination of work within the profession. Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the full-text publication rate of work presented in abstract form at subsequent CSMs and investigate factors influencing the rate. Methods A systematic search was undertaken to locate full-text publications of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy abstracts presented at CSMs between 2005 and 2011. Eligible publications were published within 5 years following abstract presentation. The influences of year of abstract presentation, APTA section, presentation type, institution of origin, study design, and study significance were assessed. Results Over one-third (38.6%) of presented abstracts progressed to full-text publication. Odds of full-text publication increased if the abstract was presented as a platform presentation, originated from a doctorate-granting institution, reported findings of an experimental study, or reported a statistically significant finding. Conclusion The full-text publication rate for orthopaedic and sports physical therapy abstracts presented at recent CSMs has increased by over 50% compared to that reported for the preceding period. The rate is now in the range of that reported in comparable clinical disciplines, demonstrating important progress in the full dissemination of work within the profession. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 7 Oct 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7581.

Do we publish what we preach? Analysis of Spanish Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Society publication rates

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to analyse the publication rate of studies presented as podium presentations in the Spanish Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (SECHC) congresses.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-two abstracts presented at the SECHC congresses held in 2007, 2009 and 2011 were included for the purpose of the study. The oral communications were categorized by study type, sample included and follow-up. In June 2017, possible publications of these studies were searched in PubMed. Type of study, delay in publication, journal and impact factor obtained were recorded. The concordance between the information presented at the congress and their subsequent full-text publications was analysed.

RESULTS

The publication rate was 17.21% (21 of the 122 abstracts studied) after 6 years, with a mean time spent for publications of 36.71 months, and a mean impact factor of 1.51. There were no differences between results initially presented at the congresses and those subsequently published (P>0.05).

DISCUSSION

The majority of papers presented at SECHC congresses do not end up with a publication. The papers that are published do not usually contain significant differences compared to the content delivered at the congress.

Publication Rates in Podium and Poster Presentations at the 2012-2014 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Annual Meetings

BACKGROUND

Subspecialty conferences are an important forum for disseminating the latest research relevant to clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to identify publication rates in podium and poster abstracts for the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) Annual Meeting and to identify the most common journals of publication and the reasons for nonpublication.

METHODS

Six hundred ten accepted abstracts (182 podium presentations, 428 posters) from the 2012-2014 AAHKS meetings were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. If an abstract could not be found after efforts by multiple searchers, the first author was emailed to determine where the research was published or why it was not published. For articles that were published, the journal, time to publication, and journal impact factor were noted.

RESULTS

The overall rate of publication was 71% (436/610). Podium presentations (164/182, 90%) were published at a higher rate than posters (271/428, 63%). The most common journal of publication was the Journal of Arthroplasty (218/436, 50%), followed by Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (77/436, 18%) and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (40/436, 9%). Average time to publication was 14.5 months (range, -4 to 44 months) from the date of the conference in which it was presented.

CONCLUSION

Presentations at the AAHKS annual meeting have an impressive rate of publication. The research presented at the meeting is impactful and high quality, warranting consideration for future publication.

Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

OBJECTIVES

We audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.

DESIGN

Audit of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals: Journal of the American Medical Association, The British Medical Journal, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Systematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.

MAIN FINDINGS

203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

A significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

Searching ClinicalTrials.gov did not change the conclusions of a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the effect of searching ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions of a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted this case study concurrently with a systematic review. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 9, 2016, to identify trial records eligible for inclusion in the review. Two independent reviewers screened ClinicalTrials.gov records. We compared conclusions and strength of evidence grade with and without ClinicalTrials.gov records for 31 comparisons and 2 outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 106 trials (53 in the peer-reviewed literature only, 23 in ClinicalTrials.gov only, and 30 in both sources). For one comparison, the addition of results identified through ClinicalTrials.gov reduced the pooled effect size. We found evidence of selective outcome reporting for two comparisons and suspected publication bias for another two comparisons. For all other comparisons, searching ClinicalTrials.gov did not change conclusions or the strength of evidence grading for the two outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our search of ClinicalTrials.gov bolstered suspicions of reporting biases but did not change either the conclusions or the strength of evidence grading. Further research is needed to determine the effect of searching ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions of systematic reviews in different topic areas and as the new rules for registration of trial results take effect.

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.

Full text publication rates of research abstracts presented at the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Congresses in the last 20 years

AIM

To evaluate the full-text publication rates of scientific research abstracts presented at the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Congresses held between 1993 and 2013 (a total of 11 occasions) and to determine factors associated with the manuscripts.

METHODOLOGY

An electronic database search was conducted from January 2015 to December 2016 to identify full text English written publications of the research abstracts presented at the last 11 ESE Biennial Congresses from 1993 to 2013. For each occasion, research abstract information were retrieved from the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ) through the official website of the ESE and the following parameters for each abstract presentation were recorded: Year of presentation, first author's affiliation, geographic origin, and type of study. Following full-text article identification, additional information was recorded such as: Year and journal of publication, elapsed time until full publication and number of authors per presentation and publication.

RESULTS

A total of 1165 research abstracts were presented, of which 401 (34.4%) were finally published as full-length articles. Overall 235 articles (58.6%) were published either in the International Endodontic Journal (IEJ, 35.7%) or Journal of Endodontics (JOE, 22.9%). The mean time between abstract presentation and full-text publication was 18.95 months. Munich (2001) had the highest publication rate (44%) whereas Lisbon (2013) had the highest number of published articles (77). Turkey was the country with the highest number of published abstracts (56). However, the Netherlands was the country with the highest number of publications related to the number of presentations (21/26) (80.7%). Differences in authorship between presentation and full publication were found in 179 (44.6%) articles.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of research abstracts presented at ESE congresses were not published in peer reviewed journals. Authors prefer to publish their research papers in international journals with high impact factor. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Barriers to peer-reviewed journal article publication of abstracts presented at the 2006-2008 Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference Meetings

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the self-reported barriers to publication for authors of abstracts presented at the most recent chiropractic scientific meetings for which publication rates are known, that is the 2006 to 2008 Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference (ACC/RAC) meetings.

METHODS

A 4-question electronic survey was sent via email to 1 of the listed authors for each abstract not published as a full paper within 4 years of the 2006 to 2008 ACC/RAC meetings. Each author was asked to complete the survey for only 1 abstract. Taking into account authors who appeared on more than 1 abstract, a link to the electronic survey was emailed to 111 potential participants.

RESULTS

Of 111 participants, 67 completed a survey for a return rate of 60%. Over 80% (55/67) of the respondents were chiropractors who were faculty members at educational institutions. Of the subjects, 30% (20/67) indicated that the meeting abstract had either been published after 2012 or still was in the publishing process. For those who had not submitted a manuscript for publication, the most frequently cited barriers to publishing were pursuit of publishing as a low priority followed by a lack of time to prepare a manuscript.

CONCLUSION

The main barriers to publishing in this sample were that publishing had a low priority compared to other possible uses of the abstract author's time and a perceived lack of time to pursue the publication process.

Publication Rates of Podium Presentation Abstracts at the Arthroscopy Association of North America Annual Meetings 2004-2012

PURPOSE

To determine the publication rates of podium presentation abstracts at the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) annual scientific meetings from 2004 to 2012.

METHODS

A database of podium presentation abstracts at the annual meetings of the AANA was compiled. Abstract presentations that reached manuscript publication were determined by a PubMed search of the MEDLINE database and Google Scholar. The journal and publication date were then recorded for all identified published abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 658 abstracts were selected for podium presentations at AANA annual meetings from 2004-2012 (range, 53-102 per year). Of these 658 abstracts, 443 (67.3%) went on to eventual publication in peer-reviewed journals. The mean time from the meeting to publication was 20.0 months. Most abstracts were published within 3 years of the meeting (n = 380, 85.8%), with a significant number of published abstracts reaching publication before the time of the meeting (n = 41, 9.3%). Published abstracts were most frequently published in Arthroscopy (n = 186, 42.0%), The American Journal of Sports Medicine (20.3%), and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall publication rate of podium presentations at AANA annual meetings (67.3%) was similar to publication rates for other major orthopaedic annual meetings. Most published abstracts (85.8%) were published within 3 years, and the mean time to publication was 20.0 months.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The rates of publication of podium presentations at AANA annual meetings show the impact and importance of these meetings in the advancement of orthopaedic research.

Timing of publication of abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented in congresses: The example of the European League against Rheumatism meeting

INTRODUCTION

The EUropean League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) congress is an important meeting to present abstracts of research in rheumatology. However, information in these abstracts is insufficient and must be followed and developed in a published article. This study aims to assess to what extent abstracts presented in the EULAR Meeting are published in journals.

METHODS

We identified all abstracts of randomized controlled trials accepted for presentation at the EULAR annual meeting from 2002 to 2011. Using a standardized research, we used Pubmed to find the corresponding publication to each congress abstract. We assessed the cumulative percentage of published abstracts over time and compared the number of included patients, the outcome and the moment of outcome assessment between abstracts presented in congress and in published article.

RESULTS

A total of 1839 abstracts were analyzed. The cumulative probability of abstracts being published in journals was 16.9% (95% CI: 15.2% to 18.6%) at 12 months, 34.3% (95% CI: 32.2% to 36.5%) at 24 months, and 46.5% (95% CI: 44.2% to 48.8%) at 36 months. When evaluable, a difference between the congress and published abstracts was found in 29.0% (247/852). The most frequent difference was a different number of included patients (196/247: 79.4%).

CONCLUSION

More than half of the abstracts of randomized trials were not published three years after they were presented in EULAR meeting. Thirty percent of abstracts were different between their presented and published version.

Publication Rates and Inconsistencies of the Abstracts Presented at the National Anatomy Congresses in 2007 and 2008

BACKGROUND

Despite significant efforts made for, most abstracts presented during a meeting do not proceed and publish as a manuscript in scientific journals.

AIMS

To investigate publication rates of national anatomy congresses.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive study.

METHODS

All abstracts presented at two annual meetings in 2007 and 2008 were extracted. PubMed and Google Scholar database search used for publication history. Presentation and study types, publication rates and mean publishing times were evaluated. Inconsistency rates between meeting abstract and final published article were also considered.

RESULTS

Among 342 abstracts, 195 (57%) were followed by a full-text article. Publication rates for oral and poster presentations were 75% and 52.2%, respectively. The mean publication time was 23.7±23 months. Overall, 89.2% of the articles were published within 5 years. There were no inconsistencies in 50 (25.6%) articles, while 145 (74.4%) had inconsistencies compared to the abstracts presented at the congress. Getting adequate information for 45 (23.1%) articles was not possible. There was no standard reporting format for the abstracts.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that, overall publication rates for abstracts presented at national anatomy meetings were higher than those presented at national meetings for clinical specialties.

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%.

Conference Presentation Characteristics of Studies Published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have determined the percentage of studies presented at national orthopaedic surgery meetings that are eventually published in peer-reviewed journals.

PURPOSE

To determine the proportion of articles in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) that are presented at national or international meetings.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

METHODS

The AJSM archive of 2014 online issues was searched. All original research articles were searched for corresponding presentations as listed at the beginning of the manuscript. An email was sent to the corresponding author of all articles, including those with a presentation listed. Corresponding authors were asked if the published study was presented at a national or international meeting and, if so, at which meeting and year the study was presented. If the study was not presented at a national meeting, the corresponding author was asked why this was the case.

RESULTS

A total of 315 articles met the inclusion criteria. Presentation information was obtained for 264 of these articles (84%). Of these 264 studies, 218 (83%) were presented at national or international conferences. A total of 341 presentations were listed, including 144 (42%) at international conferences. The average time from first presentation to publication was 12.9 months. Seventy-two studies (72/218, 33%) were presented at more than 1 meeting. Of those studies presented at more than 1 meeting, the average number of presentations was 2.7 (range, 2-6). The most common conferences at which AJSM-published studies were presented were the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) Annual Meeting (n = 56) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting (n = 43). Seven authors stated that their published studies were not presented because the study was not accepted for presentation at a national meeting.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of studies accepted for publication in AJSM are presented at national and international meetings. AOSSM and AAOS Annual Meetings are the most common conferences at which these studies are presented, although international conferences account for a substantial proportion of AJSM-published study presentations.

Dependability of results in conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology and author financial conflicts of interest as a factor associated with full publication

Background

Discrepancies between information in conference abstracts and full publications describing the same randomized controlled trial have been reported. The association between author conflicts of interest and the publication of randomized controlled trials is unclear.

The objective of this study was to use randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology to evaluate (1) the agreement in the reported main outcome results by comparing abstracts and corresponding publications and (2) the association between the author conflicts of interest and publication of the results presented in the abstracts.

Methods

We considered abstracts describing results of randomized controlled trials presented at the 2001–2004 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology conferences as eligible for our study. Through electronic searching and by emailing abstract authors, we identified the earliest publication (journal article) containing results of each abstract’s main outcome through November 2013. We categorized the discordance between the main outcome results in the abstract and its paired publication as qualitative (a difference in the direction of the estimated effect) or as quantitative. We used the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology categories for conflicts of interest: financial interest, employee of business with interest, consultant to business with interest, inventor/developer with patent, and receiving ≥ 1 gift from industry in the past year. We calculated the relative risks (RRs) of publication associated with the categories of conflicts of interest for abstracts with results that were statistically significant, not statistically significant, or not reported.

Results

We included 513 abstracts, 230 (44.8 %) of which reached publication. Among the 86 pairs with the same main outcome domain at the same time point, 47 pairs (54.7 %) had discordant results: qualitative discordance in 7 pairs and quantitative discordance in 40 pairs. Quantitative discordance was indicated as < 10, 10–20, > 20 %, and unclear in 14, 5, 14, and 7 pairs, respectively. First authors reporting of one or more conflicts of interest was associated with a greater likelihood of publication (RR = 1.31; 95 % CI = 1.04 to 1.64) and a shorter time-to-publication (log-rank p = 0.026). First author conflicts of interests that were associated with publication were financial support (RR = 1.50; 95 % CI = 1.19 to 1.90) and one or more gifts (RR = 1.42; 95 % CI = 1.05 to 1.92). The association between conflicts of interest and publication remained, irrespective of the statistical significance of the results.

Conclusions

More than half the abstract/publication pairs exhibited some amount of discordance in the main outcome results, calling into question the dependability of conference abstracts. Regardless of the main outcome results, the conflicts of interests of the abstract’s first author were associated with publication.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1343-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Analysis of subsequent publication and impact of abstracts presented at the Sir Peter Freyer Surgical Symposium: Focus on the Plenary Session

BACKGROUND

The quality of abstracts presented at a conference reflects the academic activity and research productivity of the surgical/scientific association concerned. The abstract to publication rate (44.5 % internationally), is an important indicator of the quality of presented research.

AIM

To evaluate the publication rate and impact of abstracts presented at the plenary session of the Sir Peter Freyer Surgical Symposium over a 25-year period (1989-2014), and identify factors influencing publication.

METHODS

Plenary abstracts were identified from abstract books of the Symposium from 1989-2014. The authors, institution, subspecialty and research subject were recorded. A Medline search with name of the first and last author, key words and content of all abstracts was conducted to identify related publications. The impact factor (IF) of the journal and the time to publication was recorded.

RESULTS

298 presented abstracts resulted in 168 publications (publication rate: 56 %). Basic Science research accounted for 80 % (n = 237) of the total number of presentations with the remaining 20 % (n = 61) being categorised as clinical research. Overall, cancer research accounted for 48 % of presented work. The average time to publication was 2 ± 7 years, while 11 % of all published studies achieved publication in the year of the symposium. The median impact factor for published research was 3.558 (IF range 0-39).

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that the quality of papers presented at the Sir Peter Freyer Surgical Symposium compares favourably with international equivalents, making this meeting an important forum for Irish Academic Surgery.

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

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were to investigate the publication rates of presentations at the 2006 meeting of the American Academy of Optometry (AAO), differences in the publication rates of platform versus poster presentations, consistency of the meeting abstract compared with the full-length journal article, whether abstracts were clinical or basic science, and when and in which journals articles appeared.

METHODS

Abstracts were obtained directly from the AAO. Literature searches using PubMed and VisionCite were performed to locate peer-reviewed journal articles based on those abstracts. Whether the article was based on a poster or platform presentation, congruence of the information in the abstract and the article (i.e., authorship, title, methods, and conclusions), type of study (clinical or basic science), subject category, and journal and year in which the article appeared were recorded.

RESULTS

We identified 518 proceeding abstracts, 108 of which ultimately were published between 2006 and 2013, giving an overall publication rate of 21%. Thirty-three percent of platform presentations eventually were published versus 18% of posters. Congruency showed that 17% of articles had the same title as the meeting abstract, 36% had the same authorship, and 53% had the same methods. Eighty-one percent of articles were clinical in nature, whereas 19% of them were basic science. Thirty-seven percent of articles dealt with the subjects of cornea and contact lenses. Articles were found in 39 different journals, with 34% of them appearing in Optometry and Vision Science. Eighty-eight percent of articles were published within 4 years after the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate from the 2006 AAO meeting was 21%. Platform presentations were more likely to be published than posters. Congruency rates of abstracts to articles are lower than national meetings in other fields. The vast majority of articles were published within 4 years after the meeting.

"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.

Full-text publication of abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses

INTRODUCTION

Empirical evidence has indicated that only a subsample of studies conducted reach full-text publication and this phenomenon has become known as publication bias. A form of publication bias is the selectively delayed full publication of conference abstracts. The objective of this article was to examine the publication status of oral abstracts and poster-presentation abstracts, included in the scientific program of the 82nd and 83rd European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, held in 2006 and 2007, and to identify factors associated with full-length publication.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed in April 2013 using author names and keywords from the abstract title to locate abstract and full-article publications. Information regarding mode of presentation, type of affiliation, geographical origin, statistical results, and publication details were collected and analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Approximately 51 per cent of the EOS 2006 and 55 per cent of the EOS 2007 abstracts appeared in print more than 5 years post congress. A mean period of 1.32 years elapsed between conference and publication date. Mode of presentation (oral or poster), use of statistical analysis, and research subject area were significant predictors for publication success.

LIMITATIONS

Inherent discrepancies of abstract reporting, mainly related to presentation of preliminary results and incomplete description of methods, may be considered in analogous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

On average 52.2 per cent of the abstracts presented at the two EOS conferences reached full publication. Abstracts presented orally, including statistical analysis, were more likely to get published.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference/Research Agenda Conference from 2002 to 2008

Objective : The purposes of this study were to investigate the overall publication rates of presentations at the Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference/Research Agenda Conference (ACC/RAC) meetings (2002-2008), differences in the publication rates of platform vs poster presentations, and the consistency of the meeting abstract compared to the full-length journal article. Methods : Abstracts were obtained from proceedings published in the Journal of Chiropractic Education. Literature searches using PubMed and the Index to the Chiropractic Literature (ICL) were performed to locate peer-reviewed journal articles based upon those abstracts. Whether the article was based upon a poster or platform presentation, and the congruence of the information in the abstract and article were recorded. Results : We identified 776 proceeding abstracts, 249 of which eventually were published between 2002 and 2012. The overall publication rate was 32.2%. A total of 42.7% of platform presentations eventually were published vs 20.3% of posters. Congruency showed that 43.2% had the same title as the meeting abstract, 59.7% had the same authorship, and 88.8% had the same methods. Conclusion : Publication rates of abstracts from spine and orthopedic surgery national meetings range from 34% to 59%. The ACC/RAC meetings have similar publication rates. More platform than poster presentations reach full publication. The congruency of ACC/RAC abstracts to published articles is higher than national meetings in other fields.

Publication rates of presentations at the Irish Orthopaedic Association annual meeting

BACKGROUND

Presentation of scientific research at national and international meetings is an important forum for the dissemination of knowledge. Subsequent publication of a full-text paper in a peer-reviewed journal is the expected outcome of such presentations. The publication rate from these meetings is highly variable.

AIMS

To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Irish Orthopaedic Association's Annual Conference and to determine which factors are associated with progression to full-text publication.

METHODS

We reviewed the proceedings from the Irish Orthopaedic Association's National Meeting over a 4 year period. We searched the Pubmed database using author names, institution names, and keywords from each abstract's title, to determine how many presented articles progressed to full-text publication.

RESULTS

Sixty-six of 203 were published, 97 % within 5 years of presentation. Laboratory based studies presenting novel or innovative findings were more likely to be published than clinical studies. Clinical studies were more likely to be published if they were prospective and had a longer period of follow-up. Retrospective audits were less likely to be published, even with a large cohort size. Changes in authorship of presented papers were related to a longer delay in time to full-text publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Thorough planning of research studies is essential to ensure a timely progression to full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Most studies will be published within 5 years of initial presentation.

What is the ultimate fate of presented abstracts? The conversion rates of presentations to publications over a five-year period from three North American plastic surgery meetings

BACKGROUND

Advancements in clinical decision-making are influenced by presentations made at scientific conferences or publications in journals with extensive readership. However, many ideas shared at annual conferences fail to be published, and most surgeons attend these meetings only sporadically.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the conversion rates of meeting presentations to publications in North American plastic surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE (OvidSP) and PubMed databases were cross-referenced with abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and American Association of Plastic Surgeons annual meetings from 2003 to 2007. Parameters reviewed included publication rate, time to publication, subspecialty, trial type, publication journal and journal impact factor.

RESULTS

Over the five-year study period, 45.00% of the 888 presentations were published in peer-reviewed journals. The mean time to publication was 22 months (range 1.00 to 85.90 months). In total, 57.00% of the 400 publications appeared in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; 47.20% of publications were case series study design. The majority of publications were of the reconstruction subspecialty (31.00%). Abstracts from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons had the highest conversion rate (57.70%). Publications based on abstracts presented at the American Association of Plastic Surgeons had the highest mean journal impact factor (2.33). The Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons had the highest total number of publications (n=161).

CONCLUSIONS

From the three North American annual general meetings reviewed, there was a modest conversion rate of mainly reconstructive case series published predominantly in a single journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Several years often pass from the genesis of a research hypothesis to final publication, and because the majority of presentations fail to be published, presentations should be observed with a critical eye given the more stringent peer review process and time required for final publication. In an effort to improve conversion rates, departments and faculty members must foster a culture that prioritizes publication.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at five national pharmacy association meetings

BACKGROUND

Abstract presentations at professional meetings provide a medium for disseminating the findings of scholarly activity. Rates of abstract publication from various biomedical disciplines have been evaluated, with pharmacy noted to be lower than other specialties. Previous research on pharmacy abstract publication rates was conducted for a limited number of professional meetings but has not been assessed using Google Scholar.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the full publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2005 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Spring and Annual Meetings, American Pharmacists Association (APhA) Annual Meeting, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings.

METHODS

Publication status was assessed for abstracts presented during the 2005 ACCP Spring and Annual Meetings, APhA Annual Meeting, and ASHP Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings using PubMed and Google Scholar. Data collected included abstract category, study category, practice site, database(s) in which publication appeared, time in months to publication, publication type, and journal of publication.

RESULTS

Evaluation of 2,000 abstracts presented in 2005 revealed an overall full publication rate of 19.8% (n = 384). Nearly all pharmacy abstracts were published as manuscripts (98.4%; n=378) and indexed in PubMed and Google Scholar (91.9%; n = 353), although a significant percentage were indexed in Google Scholar only (7.8%; n = 30). The mean time to full publication was 16.8 months (SD ±11.9 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Results were consistent with previously reported full publication rates of abstracts from pharmacy association meetings, indicating that abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings continue to have a lower full publication rate than other health disciplines.

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 of sports medicine-related randomized controlled trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that a significant proportion of randomized trials in medicine, and recently in orthopaedics, do not go on to publication.

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were (1) to determine publication rates of randomized controlled trials in sports medicine that have been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) and (2) to compare the registration summaries of randomized trials on CTG with final published manuscripts on pertinent methodological variables.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Two independent investigators searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all closed and completed trials related to sports medicine until June 2009 using a text search strategy. The authors then searched for publications resulting from these registered trials in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed with MEDLINE and/or EMBASE as of February 2012 based on study authors and key words provided in the study protocol. Details of primary outcomes and secondary outcomes, study sponsors, and sample size were extracted and compared between registrations and publications.

RESULTS

Of 34 closed and completed trials registered on CTG, there were 20 resultant publications in peer-reviewed journals (58.8%). There was no significant relationship between source of funding and rate of publication (P > .05). The authors found a discrepancy between the CTG registration summary and the manuscript in at least one methodological variable (primary/secondary outcomes, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size) in 16 of 20 (80.0%) articles and a discrepancy in the primary outcome in 8 of 20 (40.0%) published trials.

CONCLUSION

Although registration of sports medicine trials in CTG does not consistently result in publication or disclosure of results at 32 months from the time of study completion, observed publication rates are higher than in other orthopaedic subspecialties. Changes are also frequently made to the final presentation of eligibility criteria and primary and secondary outcomes that are not reflected in the registered trial data.

Scientific impact of Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons plenary session abstracts increases in the era of the Academic Surgical Congress from 2006 to 2010

BACKGROUND

The objective of our study was to analyze plenary abstracts since 2006, when the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS) and Society of University Surgeons (SUS) began hosting the combined annual Academic Surgical Congress (ASC). Plenary session abstracts from the separate AAS and SUS meetings from 2002 to 2004 had previously revealed no significant difference in the scientific impact of published manuscripts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 76 abstracts from the AAS (n = 40) and SUS (n = 36) plenary sessions at the annual ASC meetings (2006-2010) were reviewed. Publication rate, citation number, 2010 impact factor (IF), and 5-y IF were obtained. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact and Student t-tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 (79%) of 76 ASC plenary abstracts presented between 2006 and 2010 were published in peer-reviewed journals. Analysis revealed a higher publication rate for AAS (90%) compared with SUS (67%) plenary abstracts (P = 0.02). Among the articles published, the overall mean number of total citations was 6.7, with no difference between AAS and SUS (5.9 versus 7.8, P = 0.46). The mean 2010 five-year IF for all publications was 4.6 (AAS, 4.3 versus SUS, 5.0; P = 0.54). Compared with a previous analysis from the separate meetings, the mean IF has increased for both societies at an equivalent rate of 0.4.

CONCLUSIONS

After the initiation of the joint ASC meeting in 2006, the SUS and AAS plenary presentations continue to exhibit high-quality research. This study supports the benefit of a joint meeting for the AAS and SUS, as it has been associated with an increasing overall scientific impact for plenary abstracts.

Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers

Background

The preliminary results of a study are usually presented as an abstract in conference meetings. The reporting quality of those abstracts and the relationship between their study designs and full paper publication rate is unknown. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials are more likely to be published as full papers than observational studies.

Methods

154 oral abstracts presented at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention 2005 Oslo and the corresponding full paper publication were identified and analysed. The main outcome measures were frequency of publication, time to publication, impact factor, CONSORT (for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, STROBE (for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) score, and minor and major inconsistencies between the abstract and the full paper publication.

Results

Overall, 76 of the 154 (49%) presented abstracts were published as full papers in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.946 ± 0.812. No significant difference existed between the impact factor for randomized controlled trials (2.122 ± 1.015) and observational studies (1.913 ± 0.765, p = 0.469). The full papers for the randomized controlled trials were published after an average (SD) of 17 months (± 13 months); for observational studies, the average (SD) was 12 months (± 14 months) (p = 0.323). A trend was observed in this study that a higher percentage of randomized controlled trial abstracts were published as full papers (71% vs. 47%, p = 0.078) than observational trials. The reporting quality of abstracts, published as full papers, significantly increased compared to conference abstracts both in randomized control studies (CONSORT: 5.7 ± 0.7 to 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.018, CI -2.7 to -0.32) and in observational studies (STROBE: 8.2 ± 1.3 to 8.6 ± 1.4; p = 0.007, CI -0.63 to -0.10). All of the published abstracts had at least one minor inconsistency (title, authors, research center, outcome presentation, conclusion), while 65% had at least major inconsistencies (study objective, hypothesis, study design, primary outcome measures, sample size, statistical analysis, results, SD/CI). Comparing the results of conference and full paper; results changed in 90% vs. 68% (randomized, controlled studies versus observational studies); data were added (full paper reported more result data) in 60% vs. 30%, and deleted (full paper reported fewer result data) in 40% vs. 30%.

Conclusions

No significant differences with respect to type of study (randomized controlled versus observational), impact factor, and time to publication existed for the likelihood that a World Congress of Sports Injury conference abstract could be published as a full paper.