Publication fate of abstracts presented at Society of British Neurological Surgeons meetings

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting

BACKGROUND

Presentations at scientific conferences are an important method of research dissemination, with abstracts often used to inform clinical practice. Abstract to publication ratio is a commonly used tool for determining meeting quality. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate for abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting (AOA ASM) between 2012 and 2015 inclusive and identify reasons for non-publication.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to determine whether each abstract presented at AOA ASMs between 2012 and 2015 was associated with a full text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Where a publication could not be located, the presenter was contacted to confirm the reason for non-publication.

RESULTS

A total of 1130 abstracts were submitted (951 oral and 179 posters), and 573 resulted in full-text peer-reviewed publications (51%). The majority of publications (73%) were published within 2 years of presentation. There was no difference in likelihood of publication for oral presentations compared to posters, nor in the rate of publication across the 4 years of meetings. Common reasons for non-publication were lack of time (32%), publication considered low priority (27%) and journal rejections (22%).

CONCLUSION

The overall publication rate for abstracts presented at the AOA ASM is 51%, which is an increase from the 1998 ASM (31%). This publication rate is higher than many similar Australian meetings and on par with other international orthopaedic and subspecialty meetings. Future research should investigate potential publication bias and methods to minimise barriers to publication.

Charting the course from abstract to published article

OBJECTIVE

Abstracts act as short, efficient sources of new information. This intentional brevity potentially diminishes scientific reliability of described findings. The authors' objective was to 1) determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) annual meeting that subsequently are published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) assess AANS abstract publications for publication bias, and 3) assess AANS abstract publications for differing results.

METHODS

The authors screened all abstracts from the annual 2012 AANS meeting and identified their corresponding full-text publication, if applicable, by searching PubMed/MEDLINE. The abstract and subsequent publication were analyzed for result type (positive or negative) and differences in results.

RESULTS

Overall, 49.3% of abstracts were published as papers. Many (18.1%) of these published papers differed in message from their original abstract. Publication bias exists, with positive abstracts being 40% more likely to be published than negative abstracts. The top journals in which the full-text articles were published were Journal of Neurosurgery (13.1%), Neurosurgery (7.3%), and World Neurosurgery (5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Here, the authors demonstrate that alone, abstracts are not reliable sources of information. Many abstracts ultimately remain unpublished; therefore, they do not attain a level of scientific scrutiny that merits alteration of clinical care. Furthermore, many that are published have differing results or conclusions. In addition, positive publication bias exists, as positive abstracts are more likely to be published than negative abstracts.

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.

Characteristics and trends in publications of abstracts presented at the Canadian Ophthalmological Society Annual Meetings: 2010-2015

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) Annual Meetings from 2010 to 2015.

DESIGN

A retrospective review and literature search of abstracts presented at the COS Annual Meetings from 2010 to 2015.

METHODS

Abstracts were obtained from the scientific programs for the 2010-2015 COS meetings, excluding 2014 (data unavailable). Title, author number, presentation type, subspecialty, institution, and study design were collected. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched in duplicate using abstract title, key words, and authors. Publication date, journal, impact factor, and citation score were recorded for each publication. Publication rates were determined by year of abstract presentation, presentation type, study type, subspecialty, author number, institution, and time to publication.

RESULTS

876 abstracts were presented, of which 326 (37.3%) were posters and 548 (62.7%) were oral presentations. The publication rate was 42.9% (375 publications) with a 16-month median time to publication. The publication rate did not vary significantly by presentation type or year. Publication rates were highest among vision rehabilitation (75.0%) and glaucoma (52.0%) subspecialties; basic science research (65.0%) and systematic reviews/meta analyses (62.0%) study designs had the highest representation. Most presentations were published in the Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology (117 presentations, 31.2%). The mean impact factor and citation score for published abstracts were 2.39 ± 2.3 and 1.70 ± 1.16, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate of abstracts presented at the COS Annual Meetings has remained stable across this 5-year analysis. Publication rates are comparable to those of other specialty conferences.

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.

Publication Fate of Abstracts Presented at Four British Surgical Meetings: An 11-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

The gold standard for research is publication within a peer-reviewed journal. There is a discrepancy between the number of abstracts presented at scientific meetings and the number published as full articles. We identified publication rates for the 2012 meetings of four British surgical societies. These were the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (ASGBI), the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Transplantation Society (BTS), and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI). We also compared publication rates with these societies' 2001 meetings and identified univariate factors associated with publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify publications stemming from meeting abstracts. We extracted abstract characteristics to identify factors associated with publication and also characteristics of subsequent publications to enable comparison.

RESULTS

Publication rates were 24.1% (ASGBI), 24.6% (BTS), 21.7% (ACPGBI), and 39.4% (Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland). Rates for ASGBI, BTS, and ACPGBI meetings were significantly lower compared to 2001 meetings (P = 0.001-0.026). Mean time to publication was 12.1-22.0 mo. Mean 5-y impact factor differed significantly between meetings (P = 0.001), with the BTS meeting having the highest mean 5-y impact factor (4.658). Factors associated with publication included being an oral presentation (ASGBI P = 0.001), multi-institution study (ASGBI P = 0.003), or randomized-controlled trial (BTS P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced publication rates may represent increased acceptance of low-quality abstracts at meetings or a more competitive journal submission process. Further data are required to strengthen conclusions. Nonetheless, authors and meeting organizers should push for higher quality abstracts to promote future peer-reviewed journal publication.

Publication rates of podium and poster abstract presentations at the 2010 and 2011 society of gynecologic oncology conferences

Objective

This study aimed to determine the publication rate of oral and poster abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conferences as well as the journals that most commonly published these studies, their 5-year impact factor, the time to publication, and the reasons for nonpublication.

Methods

Abstracts presented at the 2010-2011 SGO conferences were included in this study. We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate published reports of these abstracts. If an abstract's full-text manuscript could not be located, an author of the conference abstract was contacted via email to inquire whether the research was published. If the research was unpublished, the authors were asked to provide the reason for nonpublication. The time to publication, journal, and journal impact factor were noted for abstracts that reached full-text publication.

Results

A total of 725 abstracts were identified, of which 386 (53%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Oral presentations were published at a higher rate than poster presentations. Most (70%) reached publication within 2 years of abstract presentation. Abstracts were published in 89 journals, but most (39%) were published in Gynecologic Oncology. The mean time to publication was 15.7 months, with a mean 5-year impact factor of 4.956.

Conclusions

A 53% publication rate indicates that the SGO conference selection process favors research likely to be published and, thus, presumably of high quality. The overall publication rate is higher than that reported for many other biomedical conferences.

Oral presentation to publication: publication rates of abstract presentations across two pediatric neurosurgical meetings

OBJECTIVE Both the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Joint Section on Pediatric Neurological Surgery (AANS/CNS Pediatric Section) and the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery (ISPN) annual meetings provide a platform for pediatric neurosurgeons to present, discuss, and disseminate current academic research. An ultimate goal of these meetings is to publish presented results in peer-reviewed journals. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the publication rates of oral presentations from the 2009, 2010, and 2011 AANS/CNS Pediatric Section and ISPN annual meetings in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS All oral presentations from the 2009, 2010, and 2011 AANS/CNS Pediatric Section and ISPN annual meetings were reviewed. Abstracts were obtained from the AANS/CNS Pediatric Section and ISPN conference proceedings, which are available online. Author and title information were used to search PubMed to identify those abstracts that had progressed to publication in peer-reviewed journals. The title of the journal, year of the publication, and authors' country of origin were also recorded. RESULTS Overall, 60.6% of the presented oral abstracts from the AANS/CNS Pediatric Section meetings progressed to publication in peer-reviewed journals, as compared with 40.6% of the ISPN presented abstracts (p = 0.0001). The journals in which the AANS/CNS Pediatric Section abstract-based publications most commonly appeared were Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (52%), Child's Nervous System (11%), and Journal of Neurosurgery (8%). The ISPN abstracts most often appeared in the journals Child's Nervous System (29%), Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (14%), and Neurosurgery (9%). Overall, more than 90% of the abstract-based articles were published within 4 years after presentation of the abstracts on which they were based. CONCLUSIONS Oral abstract presentations at two annual pediatric neurosurgery meetings have publication rates in peer-reviewed journal comparable to those for oral abstracts at other national and international neurosurgery meetings. The vast majority of abstract-based papers are published within 4 years of the meeting at which the abstract was presented; however, the AANS/CNS Pediatric Section abstracts are published at a significantly higher rate than ISPN abstracts, which could indicate the different meeting sizes, research goals, and resources of US authors compared with those of authors from other countries.

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.

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.

Publication fate of abstracts presented at British association of clinical anatomists annual meetings

Dissemination of research is an integral part of the scientific process. Failure to disseminate research limits the scope for critical appraisal and potentially wastes valuable resources. The gold standard for dissemination of research is peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a national meeting. The primary objective of this study was quantitative assessment of the abstracts presented at British Association of Clinical Anatomists (BACA) summer and winter meetings with regards to the rates of subsequent publication and comparison to other medical specialties. Published abstracts from the summer and winter meetings of BACA between the years of 2000 and 2014 were analyzed. MEDLINE was searched to identify peer-reviewed publications arising from each presented abstract. In total, 1,807 abstracts were presented between the years of 2000 and 2014. The mean number of abstracts presented each year was 60.2, (range 26-157). In total, 20.4% of abstracts were subsequently published in MEDLINE-indexed journals with a median publication time of 19 months. The mean number of cadaveric prosections was 45.2 ± 78.8, (range 1-960). Analysis of abstracts focusing on radiographic imaging found the mean number of scans was 224.4 ± 807.1, (range 1-6,439). Biannual meetings of BACA are a forum for the presentation of high-quality anatomical research. BACA meeting abstracts have generally reduced publication rates compared to some surgical specialty meetings; however, there is no analysis available for an equivalent anatomical meeting. Further work should try to identify reasons that may hinder or limit subsequent publication of the anatomy abstracts presented at BACA. Clin. Anat. 30:133-139, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

The Publication Rate of Presentations at Two International Spine Meetings: Scoliosis Research Society and International Meeting of Advanced Spinal Techniques

STUDY DESIGN

Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the publication rate of podium presentations from the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) and the International Meeting of Advanced Spinal Techniques (IMAST) annuals meeting and to compare the publication rate of SRS/IMAST meetings to other orthopedic and spine meetings.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although various publication rates from orthopedic meetings have been reported, recent publication rates from the SRS and IMAST annual meetings are not known.

METHODS

Paper presentations and award-nominated papers from the 2009 to 2011 annual SRS and IMAST meetings were identified. Using PubMed, we searched for publications with a title of the paper presentations or containing the same authors. The publication rate of the award-nominated papers were evaluated in the same manner. We also identified the destination journals of the papers.

RESULTS

A total of 764 podium presentations were presented at SRS and IMAST from 2009 to 2011. Of these 764 abstracts, 339 were published in peer-reviewed journals, with an overall publication rate of 44.37%. The publication rates for the two different meetings (SRS and IMAST) were significantly different, 47.83% (SRS) and 41.53% (IMAST), p = .03. Award-nominated abstracts had a publication rate of 63.64% (49/77) significantly different than nonnominated abstracts, 42.4% (290/684); p = .0004. There was a significant difference in publication rates between the SRS award-nominated abstracts (72.97%, 27/37) and the nonnominated abstracts (45.25%; 138/305), p = .0001. There was no difference in publication rates for IMAST award-nominated abstracts 55% (21/40) and nonnominated abstracts (40.1%, 152/379), p = .27. The publication rate was highest for 2010 abstracts (45.78%), followed by 2009 (43.94%), and lowest for 2011 (43.43%). Spine was the most common publication journal for the two meetings.

CONCLUSION

In one of the first studies evaluating the publication rate of podium presentation from the SRS and IMAST annual meetings, we found an overall publication rate of 44.37% (47.83% SRS, 41.53% IMAST) and 63.64% for award-nominated papers.

Quality Evaluation of Abstracts Presented at the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Annual Scientific Meeting

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To examine the rate of abstract publication from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Annual Scientific Meeting (SGSASM), 2004 to 2012.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective study in which all abstracts presented at the SGSASM from 2004 to 2012 were reviewed. Information was collected on oral (O), oral poster (OP), and poster (P) presentations. To evaluate for publication, all abstracts were searched for in the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate whether there were differences in distribution of published studies by first author location and affiliation and number of abstract authors.

DESIGN CLASSIFICATION

Canadian Task Force III.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In total, 867 abstracts were reviewed, including all O, OP, and P presentations. Video and tips and tricks presentations were excluded. Overall rate of publication for all abstracts from 2004 to 2012 was 55.7%, comprising 82.4% for O presentations, 60.9% for OP presentations, and 41.4% for P presentations. There was no significant difference in location for published abstracts (p = .878), although published abstracts had a significantly greater number of authors (p < .001). Abstracts presented by authors from university programs were more likely to be published (p < .001). For all presentation types, the mean number of citations for published abstracts was different for the 9-year period (O, OP, and P: p < .001), with an overall decline toward the end of the assessment period.

CONCLUSION

Over a 9-year period (2004-2012), the rate of abstract publication at the SGSASM was 55.7%, which is similar to other academic meetings. The comparability of this publication rate shows that the abstract selection committee is able to select high-quality research with limited information provided in abstract submissions.