Publication rates of abstracts presented at the Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference/Research Agenda Conference from 2002 to 2008

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the 2011-2019 Society for Education in Anesthesia Meetings

Introduction

The Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA) promotes dissemination of discoveries and innovations. We investigated the rate of publication of SEA Spring Meeting abstracts, hypothesizing that Research abstracts were published more frequently than Innovative Curriculum abstracts. We also studied the time between abstract presentation and publication and tracked the journals in which they were published.

Methods

All abstracts presented at SEA spring meetings from 2011-2019 were included. We searched PubMed for published articles that were based on those SEA abstracts. We calculated the overall publication rate and the respective publication rates for Research and Innovative Curriculum abstracts. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and performed the Pearson χ2 test to compare publication rates between Research abstracts and Innovative Curriculum abstracts. We calculated the mean number of years between meeting presentation and publication and tabulated the number of works published in each journal.

Results

A total of 351 abstracts (128 Research and 223 Curriculum) were presented at SEA spring meetings. The overall publication rate was 15% (52/351). Research abstracts were published more frequently than Curriculum abstracts: 24.2% (31/128) versus 9.4% (21/223); OR = 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.7-5.6); P = .0003. The mean time from presentation to publication was 1.7 ± 1.3 years. The works appeared in 20 different journals.

Conclusion

SEA Spring Meeting abstracts were published less frequently than abstracts from other medical professional society meetings (21%-72.3%). Although the lower publication rate of Innovative Curriculum abstracts unique to the SEA meeting largely explains this shortfall, a relatively low publication rate, even for the Research abstracts, signals opportunities for growth.

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.

Five-year publication rate of podium presentations at SICOT Annual Conference: an observational study and new objective proposal of conference power

INTRODUCTION

The SICOT Conference Committee continually tries to improve the quality of presentations at their annual international meetings. However to the author's best knowledge, no previous study has been undertaken to determine abstract quality. This study aimed to determine the five-year publication rate of presentations made at the 2009 SICOT Annual International Conference (AIC), recognise predictors of full-text publication, identify inconsistencies between presentations and publications, and determine presentation-publication delay.

METHODS

We retrieved all 329 oral presentation abstracts from the 2009 SICOT Conference, recorded fundamental study details and conducted a comprehensive, electronic search of Medline and PubMed to determine publication status. For subsequent publications, we examined for inconsistencies between presentation abstracts and full-text publications, whether there were retrospectively identifiable publication predictors and calculated presentation-publication delay.

RESULTS

The five-year publication rate for all presentations was 31.3%, for oral presentations. The average presentation-publication delay was 23.4 months. Observational studies were the most commonly published studies. Publications most commonly resulted from studies related to hip and knee subspecialties.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that almost one third of all abstracts presented at SICOT led to a full-text publication. This is a positive outcome particularly when made in comparison to similar studies of other reputable international conferences such as European Federation of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). This study re-enforces SICOT's reputation as a world leading international conference with a strict peer-review process yielding high-quality presentations.

Barriers to peer-reviewed journal article publication of abstracts presented at the 2006-2008 Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference Meetings

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the self-reported barriers to publication for authors of abstracts presented at the most recent chiropractic scientific meetings for which publication rates are known, that is the 2006 to 2008 Association of Chiropractic Colleges Educational Conference and Research Agenda Conference (ACC/RAC) meetings.

METHODS

A 4-question electronic survey was sent via email to 1 of the listed authors for each abstract not published as a full paper within 4 years of the 2006 to 2008 ACC/RAC meetings. Each author was asked to complete the survey for only 1 abstract. Taking into account authors who appeared on more than 1 abstract, a link to the electronic survey was emailed to 111 potential participants.

RESULTS

Of 111 participants, 67 completed a survey for a return rate of 60%. Over 80% (55/67) of the respondents were chiropractors who were faculty members at educational institutions. Of the subjects, 30% (20/67) indicated that the meeting abstract had either been published after 2012 or still was in the publishing process. For those who had not submitted a manuscript for publication, the most frequently cited barriers to publishing were pursuit of publishing as a low priority followed by a lack of time to prepare a manuscript.

CONCLUSION

The main barriers to publishing in this sample were that publishing had a low priority compared to other possible uses of the abstract author's time and a perceived lack of time to pursue the publication process.

Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the 2006 Meeting of the American Academy of Optometry

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were to investigate the publication rates of presentations at the 2006 meeting of the American Academy of Optometry (AAO), differences in the publication rates of platform versus poster presentations, consistency of the meeting abstract compared with the full-length journal article, whether abstracts were clinical or basic science, and when and in which journals articles appeared.

METHODS

Abstracts were obtained directly from the AAO. Literature searches using PubMed and VisionCite were performed to locate peer-reviewed journal articles based on those abstracts. Whether the article was based on a poster or platform presentation, congruence of the information in the abstract and the article (i.e., authorship, title, methods, and conclusions), type of study (clinical or basic science), subject category, and journal and year in which the article appeared were recorded.

RESULTS

We identified 518 proceeding abstracts, 108 of which ultimately were published between 2006 and 2013, giving an overall publication rate of 21%. Thirty-three percent of platform presentations eventually were published versus 18% of posters. Congruency showed that 17% of articles had the same title as the meeting abstract, 36% had the same authorship, and 53% had the same methods. Eighty-one percent of articles were clinical in nature, whereas 19% of them were basic science. Thirty-seven percent of articles dealt with the subjects of cornea and contact lenses. Articles were found in 39 different journals, with 34% of them appearing in Optometry and Vision Science. Eighty-eight percent of articles were published within 4 years after the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication rate from the 2006 AAO meeting was 21%. Platform presentations were more likely to be published than posters. Congruency rates of abstracts to articles are lower than national meetings in other fields. The vast majority of articles were published within 4 years after the meeting.