Analysis of full-text publication and publishing predictors of abstracts presented at an Italian public health meeting (2005-2007)

The campaign "This Is Public Health" in Italy, set up by a team of Public Health Schools in Northern Italy

Despite the great effort to raise awareness among health promotion, nowadays Public Health policies are not often recognized as important tools. For this reason, the Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach is instrumental in tackling this information gap. In 2018, the US Association of Schools & Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) launched an international campaign called “This is Public Health” (TIPH), whose aim was “to brand public health and raise awareness of how it affects individuals, communities and populations”. The Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER), in coordination with ASPPH, decided to create a European campaign to support and to reproduce the American one, by opening a challenge among the European Public Health Schools. The Schools and Programs of PH of Vita-Salute “San Raffaele” University, Milan, University of Parma, University of Pavia and Politecnico of Milan won this bid. In this “briefing on” we present a report on the Italian project for raising awareness of Public Health among general population and health care personell.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Rate and factors influencing the conversion of abstracts presented at the argentinian congress of hypertension meetings to indexed full peer-reviewed publications

INTRODUCTION

Publication rates vary significantly among different scientific meetings, with many abstracts never being published as peer-reviewed articles. This issue has never been investigated in the Hypertension field in Argentina. Our purpose was to determine the proportion of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings that were published as full articles in peer-reviewed indexed journals, the time lag to publication and the factors associated with successful publication.

METHODS

we conducted a PubMed search to identify peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings between 2006 and 2015, assessing publication rate along with the time lag to publication. We also extracted information about several abstract characteristics and, for those that got published, we recorded the date of publication and journal name with its impact factor and H index. Predictors of publication were analyzed using a multivariable model.

RESULTS

a total of 619 abstracts were presented between 2006 and 2015. The rate of conversion to full-text peer-reviewed articles by June 2017 was 28.1% (95%CI 24.7-31.8%), with a median time to publication of 15.7 months (IQR 8-30.9). On multivariable analysis, the independent predictors of publication were basic science category (OR 5 [95%CI 2.3-10.8], p<0.001), oral presentation (OR 2.8 [95%CI 1.6-4.9], p<0.001) and being an award winner for the presentation (OR 3 [95%CI 1.3-6.8], p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

conversion rate to full peer-reviewed articles of abstracts presented at the Argentinian Congress of Hypertension meetings is far from ideal, with potential areas where efforts should be concentrated to improve dissemination of knowledge.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at Japan Geriatrics Society Annual Meetings (2011-2012): a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at Japan Geriatrics Society Annual Meetings. Publication rates were determined by searching for full-text publications up to September 2017 in the MEDLINE database. Factors associated with publication were determined.

RESULTS

In total, 618 abstracts presented at Japan Geriatrics Society Annual Meetings (2011-2012) were included. Of those, 146 (23.6% [95% CI 20.3-27.0%]) were published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in MEDLINE. The median time to publication was 13.0 months (interquartile range 6.0-25.8 months). More than 90% were published within 4 years. The publications appeared in 64 different journals, and 87.0% were published in English-language journals. Multivariable analysis revealed more frequent publication of oral presentations (25.4% vs 16.9% of poster presentations; adjusted OR 1.79 [95% CI 1.05-3.06]), randomized controlled trials (66.7% vs 22.8% for other study designs; adjusted OR 10.79 [95% CI 3.02-38.53]) and studies with n ≥ 100 (28.7% vs 18.4% of studies with n < 100; adjusted OR 1.97 [95% CI 1.32-2.95]). Because more than three-fourths of the abstracts presented at Japan Geriatrics Society Annual Meetings remained unpublished within 5 years after the conferences, additional efforts may be needed to promote their publication.

United European Gastroenterology Week scientific abstracts and their progression to full publication

OBJECTIVE

Abstracts presentations at scientific meetings enable rapid dissemination of novel research. The percentage of abstracts that proceed to full publication from differing medical specialties is highly variable. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of abstracts presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All abstracts presented at UEGW between 2009 and 2011 were assessed. Cross-referencing of the first author, senior author and at least one keyword of the abstract was performed using PubMed and EMBASE databases. Abstracts and possible resultant full publications were then examined in tandem to ensure that they represented the same study. Data were also collected on lag time to publication, journal impact factors, country of the author and factors influencing subsequent publication.

RESULTS

A total of 6785 abstracts (1438 oral and 5347 poster presentations) were presented during the period assessed. Of these, 2099 (30.9%) proceeded to full publication in indexed journals. Oral abstract presentations were most likely to proceed to full publication compared with poster presentations (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.56) and were more likely to achieve publication in higher impact journals (median impact factor 4.78 vs. 2.89, P<0.0005). The median lag time to full publication was 15 (IQR: 7-15) months. The Netherlands had the highest United European Gastroenterology abstract conversion rate to full publication (46.8%).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to assess the publication rates of UEGW. Findings are favourable with similar studies from other societies.

Factors Affecting Subsequent Full-text Publication of Papers Presented at the Annual Conference of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics

OBJECTIVE

To study the factors associated with the subsequent (over next 9 years) full-text publication of papers presented at the 44th National Conference of Indian Academy of Pediatrics (PEDICON), 2007.

METHODS

All papers presented at PEDICON 2007 were searched for subsequent full-text publication over the next 9 years in English-language journals by an internet-based search. The published papers were compared with the conference-abstracts.

Results

74 (16%) of the 450 abstracts presented were subsequently published; 61 (82.4%) in Medline-indexed journals. Majority (50, 67.6%) of the papers was published within the first 36 mo in journals with mean (SD) impact factor of 2.62 (1.63). The factors significantly associated with subsequent publication were papers presented as award papers (P<0.001), those reporting on Interventional trials (P<0.001), and those from medical colleges (P<0.05). On comparison of the conference abstracts with the subsequently published full-papers, 55% had a change in title; authors were changed in 65%, and participants' numbers were dissimilar in 8.6%.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to identify the factors responsible for this low rate of subsequent publication, and interventions to improve it both at institutional and researchers' level.

Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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