Five-year publication rate of clinical presentations at the open and closed American shoulder and elbow surgeons annual meeting from 2005-2010

Publication rates of abstracts presented at American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons annual open and closed conferences: 2015-2019

Background

The annual meetings hosted by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) present the latest prepublication literature in shoulder and elbow surgery, facilitating early dissemination of novel findings that impact clinical decision-making. Evaluating the publication rate of presented abstracts at ASES conferences becomes crucial in assessing the quality of research showcased, as these presentations often precede the peer-review process.

Methods

The ASES conference programs from 2015-2019 were reviewed to identify presented abstracts. For each abstract, the title, author(s), conference year, and meeting type (open vs. closed) were recorded. The names of the author(s) of each abstract were searched in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases to determine if there was an associated published manuscript. For each identified manuscript, the title, author(s), date of publication, publishing journal, impact factor of the publishing journal, level of evidence, and number of citations were recorded.

Results

A total of 316 abstracts were presented as podium lectures at ASES open and closed meetings between 2015 and 2019. Within 3 years of presentation, 240 (75.9%) of the presented abstracts resulted in publication. There was an increase in the proportion of abstracts resulting in publication within 3 years of the presentation from 2015-2019 (R = 0.8733, P = .053). Overall, the proportion of presented abstracts that went on to publication in peer-reviewed journals also increased (R = 0.8907, P = .043). Manuscripts of abstracts presented at open meetings had a shorter time to publication (8.78 vs. 11.82 months; P = .0160) and were cited more often (40.89 vs. 30.11, P = .0099) than those presented at closed meetings.

Conclusion

There has been an increase in the publication rate of abstracts presented at ASES annual meetings in the study period. Published manuscripts of abstracts presented at ASES open conferences were published faster, and were cited more often, than closed conferences. ASES conferences allow for the presentation of high-quality prepublication literature in shoulder and elbow surgery.

No difference in abstract publication rates between the open and closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons meetings from 2013 to 2019

BACKGROUND

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society has advanced the practice of shoulder and elbow care through the exhibition of research at academic meetings. The ASES annual meeting is a closed (member-only) conference annually held in October, while the specialty day is an open (non-members included) event that takes place during the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting week in March. This study aims to compare the rate of publication for abstracts presented at the open and closed ASES meetings from 2013 to 2019.

METHODS

The ASES website was searched to obtain the annual meeting and specialty day program agendas from 2013 to 2019. A standardized search protocol was employed to identify conference abstracts that went on to be published. Publications associated with an ASES abstract were analyzed through several variables including the time to publication, journal impact factor (JIF), and level of evidence.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the rates of publication of the open (76.5%, 121/158) and closed (75.3%, 223/296) meetings (P = .904). The median time to publication significantly differed between the open (7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0-10.0) and closed (11 months, 95% CI: 9.0-13.0) meetings (P = .02). There was no difference between the median JIF between the open (2.69, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) and closed (2.73, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) meetings. The distribution of the level of evidence in published articles comparing the open and closed meetings did not differ significantly (P = .446).

DISCUSSION

The overall quality of academic research presented at orthopedic subspecialty conferences can be objectively evaluated through abstract publication rates. Our analysis demonstrates that there is not a single significant difference among the publication rates, median JIF, and level of evidence distribution between the ASES open and closed meetings from 2013 to 2019. Impactful research is showcased at both the open and closed meetings. Societies that limit submissions from members only at annual meetings can consider soliciting research from non-members. While the quality of research would not decline if non-ASES members were invited to participate, the presence of a closed annual meeting may be a valuable tool for societies to expand their reach through member-exclusive benefits.

Abstract to publication rate: Do all the papers presented in conferences see the light of being a full publication?

BACKGROUND

Every year the scientific sessions of Annual National Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society (ANCIPS) are marked by presentation of free papers, posters, and award paper sessions, which are usually meant for presentation of new research which is not yet published. Hence, it is expected that these papers will be published in near future so that the scientific literature is distributed and shared with wider audience.

AIM

This paper aims to evaluate the abstract to publication rate of papers presented during ANCIPS in the years 2012-2014.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this study, all the free papers, posters, and award papers presented during the ANCIPS of 2012-2014 were listed, and electronic searches were carried out to search for published articles. In addition, one of the authors of papers not found in the electronic searches were contacted through E-mail.

RESULTS

A total of 1081 papers were presented during the ANCIPS in the 3 year period under study. Of these, 64 were award papers, 622 were free papers, and 395 were posters. Majority (n = 807; 74.6%) of these could be categorized as research data-based presentations; this was followed by case reports/series (203; 18.8%), review of literature (n = 35; 3.3%), and others (n = 36; 3.3%). Overall, only 27% of the papers were published after at least 5 years of the presentation. Of all the award papers, 69.6% of papers were published, whereas only 26.8% of free oral papers and 22.5% of free posters were published. About half (45.6%) of the papers were published in national journals. In terms of indexing, among those which were published, 62.8% were published in Medline-indexed (PubMed-listed) Journals with a mean impact factor of 1.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that only 27% of the abstracts presented during the ANCIPS are ultimately published as full text articles in the next 5 years.

Manuscript Submission Patterns of Authors Publishing in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Journals

Background

Previous studies have examined the most cited articles in orthopaedic sports medicine research and the journals in which they were published.

Purpose

To analyze the manuscript submission patterns of authors who published manuscripts in various orthopaedic sports medicine journals.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

All articles published in the March 2017 and April 2017 issues of Arthroscopy, the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA), and the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM) were searched. In addition, the past 50 sports medicine-related articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) dating back from April 2017 to May 2015 were searched. The corresponding author of each article was asked whether the publishing journal was the first journal of submission. If the article was previously submitted elsewhere, authors were asked which other journals, the dates of submission, and the order of submission. The proportion of articles that were initially submitted to each journal, the mean number of submissions prior to publication, and the mean duration from initial submission to date of publication were calculated for each journal.

Results

A total of 298 articles were included in this study, and 221 (74%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The mean number of submissions before acceptance was 1.05 for AJSM, 1.18 for JBJS, 1.20 for KSSTA, 1.38 for Arthroscopy, and 2.19 for OJSM. The percentage of articles that were submitted to their accepting journal first (ie, not previously submitted elsewhere) was 95% for AJSM, 85% for JBJS, 82% for KSSTA, 68% for Arthroscopy, and 13% for OJSM.

Conclusion

Among the orthopaedic sports medicine journals included in this study, articles published in AJSM have the highest percentage of first submissions.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at major interventional radiology conferences

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the publication rate and factors predictive of publication of oral presentations at the annual meetings of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe (CIRSE) and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR).

METHODS

Keywords and authors from oral presentation abstracts at the 2012 CIRSE and SIR annual meetings were used to search PubMed and GoogleScholar for subsequent publication. Logistic regression was performed to identify whether number of authors, country of origin, subject category, methodology, study type, and/or study results were predictive of publication.

RESULTS

A total of 421 abstracts (CIRSE-126, SIR-295) met the inclusion criteria. The overall publication rate across both conferences was 44.9%. Time from conference presentation to publication was 15±8.9 months for CIRSE and 16.3±8.8 months for SIR (P > 0.05), with a combined time interval of 15.9±8.8 months for both. The median impact factor of published abstracts was 2.075 (interquartile range, 2.075-2.775) for CIRSE and 2.093 (2.075-2.856) for SIR (P > 0.05). The most common country of origin for published abstracts was Germany (27.1%) at CIRSE and the United States (69%) at SIR. Logistic regression did not identify factors that were predictive of future publication.

CONCLUSION

Publication rates were similar for CIRSE and SIR. Factors such as country of origin, topic of study and study results were not predictive of future publication. Authors should not be discouraged from submitting their work to journals based on these factors.

The rate of publication of free papers at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy congresses

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency with which free papers presented at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) congress were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, this study evaluated whether any correlations exist between the level of evidence of the free papers and their frequency of publication or the impact factor of the journals in which they are published.

METHODS

Free papers presented at the 2008 and 2010 ESSKA congresses were included for assessment. Clinical papers (observational studies and trials involving direct interaction between an investigator and human subjects) were graded for level of evidence by two independent reviewers. A comprehensive strategy was used to search the databases PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), and EMBASE for all publications corresponding to the included free papers.

RESULTS

Three hundred-ninety presentations were evaluated, of which 215 (55%) were ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal within five years of the presentation date. The mean time from presentation to publication was 16 months (SD 25 months). There was no significant difference in the distribution of the level of evidence between studies that were ultimately published, versus those that were not published (n.s.). The level of evidence of the published study was not a significant predictor of the impact factor of the journal in which it was published (n.s.). Presentations were most commonly published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (24%) and The American Journal of Sports Medicine (22%).

CONCLUSION

Free papers at the 2008 and 2010 ESSKA congress were published at a frequency that is comparable to that at other orthopaedic meetings. The publication rate was similar across all levels of evidence. Further encouragement of manuscript preparation and submission following these meetings could help to ensure important research findings are disseminated to large audiences.