Increasing output and low publication rate of Brazilian studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings

Bibliometric analysis and conversion rate of abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology into publication of full articles

INTRODUCTION

the presentation of research at a congress is an interesting means for scientific dissemination, but only with publication in an indexed journal does the data become accessible and disseminated. The conversion rate in published articles of abstracts presented at congresses is an indicator to assess the scientific quality of those events. The aim of this study is to evaluate bibliometric characteristics of abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology and to determine the factors that affect publication rates.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of all abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congresses of Coloproctology from 2015 to 2019. Multiple databases were analyzed to estimate the conversion rate of the presented papers, as well as variables associated with the conversion of abstracts into full manuscripts through bivariate analysis and multivariate variables of these predictors.

RESULTS

1756 abstracts were analyzed. Most studies are retrospective, series or case reports, and even personal experience. The conversion rate was 6.9%. The presence of statistical analysis was twice as high for published abstracts as for unpublished ones.

CONCLUSION

the data presented demonstrate a low scientific productivity of the specialty, since the research carried out is, for the most part, not published as complete manuscripts. The predictors of publication of abstracts were: multicenter studies, studies with statistical analysis, study designs with a higher level of evidence and studies awarded by the congress.

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.

Conversion of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscripts: a brazilian perspective

Objective

to assess the conversion rate of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscript publications and examine factors associated with this conversion.

Methods

we assessed the abstracts presented at the 47th and 48th Brazilian Congresses of Plastic Surgery by cross-referencing with multiple databases. We analyzed the Abstracts' characteristics associated with full manuscript publications.

Results

of the 200 abstracts presented, 50 abstracts were subsequently published in full, giving the conference a conversion rate of 25%. The mean time to publish was 15.00±13.75 months. In total, there were 4.93±1.63 authors per abstract and 67.8±163 subjects per abstract; 43.5% of the abstracts were of retrospective studies; 69% comprised the plastic surgery topics head and neck, and chest and trunk, and 88.5% had no statistical analysis. Overall, 80% of the manuscripts were published in plastic surgery journals, 76% had no impact factor and 52% had no citations. Bivariate and multivariate analyses revealed the presence of statistical analysis to be the most significant (p<0.05) predictive factor of conversion of abstracts into full manuscripts.

Conclusion

the conversion rate found from this bibliometric research appeared a bit lower than the conversion trend of international plastic surgery meetings, and statistical analysis was a determinant of conversion success.

Brazilian abstracts presented at the American Urological Association annual meetings: contribution, publication rates, and comparison with oncology abstracts

PURPOSE

Scientific research originating from Brazil appears to be rising in several medical fields. Research results are often presented at scientific meetings before publication in peer-reviewed journals. We investigated the publication rate of Brazilian studies presented in American Urological Association (AUA) meetings and compared with the rate of publication of Brazilian oncological studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meetings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

a hand search of 12,454 abstracts presented at aua meetings 2001-2007 was conducted. abstracts for which at least two-thirds of institutions were from brazil were considered as brazilian. final publication was searched in pubmed and lilacs databases. oncological abstracts were also hand searched in the asco meetings proceedings in the same years.

RESULTS

There was no significant temporal trend in the proportion of AUA studies originating from Brazil along those 7 years. A total of 195 abstracts (1.57%) were from Brazil. One hundred (51.3%) abstracts were published in full, and the estimated 5-year publication rate was 48.2%. There was a progressive increase in publication rates for studies categorized as video, poster, and podium presentations. Considering abstracts presented in years 2001-2005, urologic publication rate was significantly higher than for abstracts presented at the ASCO meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the Brazilian contribution to AUA meetings is at a plateau and that the Brazilian literature contribution is greater in urology than in oncology. Efforts must be invested towards raising this plateau and understanding qualitative aspects of the urology scientific output from Brazil.

Treatment priorities in oncology: do we want to live longer or better?

OBJECTIVES

Despite the progress achieved in the fight against cancer over the past several years, assessing the needs, goals and preferences of patients with cancer is of the utmost importance for the delivery of health care. We sought to assess priorities regarding quantity versus quality of life among Brazilian patients, comparing them with individuals without cancer.

METHODS

Using a questionnaire presenting four hypothetical cancer cases, we interviewed cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, most of whom had administrative functions in our hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 214 individuals participated: 101 patients, 44 health-care professionals and 69 laypersons. The mean ages in the three groups were 56, 34 and 31 years old, respectively (p<0.001). The patients had gastrointestinal (25%), breast (22%), hematologic (10%), lung (8%) or other tumors (36%) and the tumor-node- metastasis (TNM) stage was I, II, III or IV in 22%, 13%, 34% and 31% of cases, respectively. Treatment priorities differed significantly among the three groups (p = 0.005), with survival time being a higher priority for patients than for the other two groups and with opposite trends regarding quality of life. In multivariate analysis, the age and sex distributions were not associated with the choice to maximize quality of life. In this limited sample of cancer patients, there were no associations between treatment priorities and disease stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Both survival time and quality of life appeared to be important to cancer patients, oncology health-care professionals and laypersons, but survival time seemed to have higher priority for people diagnosed with cancer than for healthy people. Additionally, survival seemed to be more important than quality of life for all three groups assessed.

Distribution and trends of hematology and oncology research in Latin America: A decade of uncertainty

BACKGROUND

Although hematology and oncology research is a highly relevant and evolving field, research contributions by Latin American countries, apart from Brazil, remain unclear.

METHODS

The authors performed a bibliometric analysis through a methodical search of the Latin American abstracts presented at 4 main hematology and oncology annual scientific meetings from 2000 to 2010. Latin American regional and national productivity was described through distribution and trend analyses; the subsequent percentage of full-text publications was also determined.

RESULTS

In total, 2871 abstracts were identified, of which 1972 abstracts (68.7%) were determined to be original Latin American research and were included in the analysis. Brazil produced by far the most abstracts, with 51.1% of the total, followed by Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Uruguay. Together, these 6 countries accounted for 95.2% of the abstracts. Latin America had a positive trend, registering an average increase of 21.5 abstracts per year (P < .001). Significant positive growth trends were observed for Brazil, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. Argentina and Uruguay were the most productive countries when considering the rate of abstract presentation per population. The full-text publication rate was 17.9%, and the median time to publication after presentation was 1 year. Brazil prevailed as the leading publishing country (60%), followed by Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Cuba, all of which together published 96% of the full-text articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Hematology and oncology research is increasing in Latin America, but this contribution remains limited to a few countries. There is also a low rate of full-text articles derived from annual scientific meetings. More extensive research is recommended.

Existe viés de publicação para artigos brasileiros sobre câncer?

Objective:

To investigate whether Brazilian articles on cancer are published in journals with an impact factor and/or repercussion (measured by the number of citations) inferior to those that come from foreign organizations.

Methods:

A search was carried out in PubMed for the MeSH term “neoplasm” with the limits clinical trial, affiliation of the Brazilian author(s), and interval from July 1^st, 2009 to June 30, 2010. Selected for matching were non-Brazilian related articles published from three months prior to three months after the date of publication of the Brazilian study. The numbers of citations were obtained from two databases, as well as the impact factor for the journals in which the articles were published.

Results:

Fortythree national and 876 related international articles were identified. The Brazilian publications had a mean impact factor of 3.000 versus 3.430 of the international ones (p=0.041). There was no statistically significant difference as to the number of citations between the two groups. The affiliation of the first author with a Brazilian or foreign organization did not significantly influence the number of citations or the impact factor.

Conclusion:

Brazilian articles are significantly less accepted in journals with higher impact factors, although it does not compromise its repercussion on the scientific community.

The geography of clinical cancer research: analysis of abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is the largest forum for presentation of clinical research in oncology. We quantified the contribution of countries and assessed correlates of their presence at such meetings.

METHODS

After stratifying abstracts according to category of presentation (oral, poster, and 'publication only'), we took a random sample of 10% of the studies presented at years 2001-2003 and 2006-2008. We assigned abstract nationality using the affiliation of authors. For multinational studies, we developed an algorithm to assign nationality.

RESULTS

Of the 22 045 eligible abstracts, 2206 were analyzed and represented 71 countries: 905 (41%) abstracts were from a single institution, 969 (44%) were multicenter, uninational studies, and 332 (15%) were multinational studies. United States nationality was assigned to 49% of all abstracts and the next 14 countries with a higher number of studies accounted for 41%. There was a statistically significant temporal trend in the proportion of multinational studies. Also, multinational studies and abstracts with United States nationality were more frequently presented in oral and poster fashion and had more frequent involvement of the pharmaceutical industry.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a geographic overview of clinical cancer research and indicates that multinational collaboration is increasing.