The fate of abstracts presented at international ophthalmology meetings: 2- and 5-year publication rates

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at AAPOS Annual Meetings: From Conference Abstract to Full-Text Article

PURPOSE

To review and analyze abstracts presented at American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) annual meetings, and to identify publication rates and potential predictive factors for better outcomes.

METHODS

All abstracts accepted for presentation at AAPOS annual meetings from 2013 to 2017 were examined. A comprehensive literature search via PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify whether the abstracts had been published as full text. A multivariate analysis was achieved to assess the factors related to successful publication, and a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate the publication time course of abstracts.

RESULTS

Of 819 analyzed abstracts, 437 (53%) were published in peer-reviewed journals with a median impact factor of 2.7. The overall mean time to publication was 3 ± 2.2 years. The multivariate analysis revealed that abstracts were more likely to be published if they were accepted at an AAPOS annual meeting as an oral paper (P < .001), if they were prospective (P > .001) and multicenter (P = .013) studies, and if they had strabismus, retina, and vitreous disorders and diagnosis as main topics (P = .022). The Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed significant differences in the publication time distribution for multicenter versus single-center abstracts and paper versus poster and e-poster (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the abstracts accepted for presentation at the AAPOS annual meetings were published in peer-reviewed journals within 3 years from submission to the meeting. The factors associated with a higher publication rate were the prospective study design, multicentricity, and presentation at the meeting as an oral paper. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 20XX;XX(X):XX-XX.].

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.

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.

What happens to global health research: analysis of the full-length publication rates of research abstracts presented at two major global health conferences

BACKGROUND

Global health research has been expanding rapidly. The Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH) and Global Health and Innovation Conference (GHIC) are the two major conferences for global health research. It is unclear how much of the presented research goes on to full-length publication.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine publication rates and journals of CUGH and GHIC research.

METHODS

A total of 1449 abstracts from CUGH and GHIC from 2014 to 2015 were searched by title, author and keywords using Google Scholar and PubMed. Publications were categorised according to WHO Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) categories.

RESULTS

Research was published in 293 journals at a rate of 34.0%, within an average of 15.1 months. The 15 MEDLINE indexed global health journals accounted for just 5.5% of publications.

DISCUSSION

Despite growth in global health research, publication rates from the two major conferences are low. The majority of publications in journals are not MEDLINE indexed global health journals. Improved publication and consolidation of global health research is critical.

CONCLUSION

Global health conference publication rates are low. Effective dissemination is critical as the field grows. This may require increased publishing support, improved indexing and consolidation of global health research.