High Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at Lumbar Spine Research Society Meetings

Background

Although publication rates from multiple orthopedic research conferences have been published in the literature, the publication rates of abstracts presented at the Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS) meetings have never been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the publication rates from the LSRS annual meeting years 2008-2012 and then to compare those rates with that of other spine research society meetings.

Methods

Podium presentations from 2008 to 2012 and poster presentations from 2010 to 2012 were reviewed. For each presentation, a PubMed search was performed to determine if a full-text publication existed. χ² tests were used to compare LSRS publication rates to those of other spine meetings. In addition, impact of published articles was evaluated by average citation count and average journal impact factor.

Results

From 2008 to 2012, a total of 332 podium and poster presentations were identified. The overall publication rate was 55.1% (183/332). For podium presentations, this was greatest in 2012 (66.0%) and lowest in 2008 (51.5%). For poster presentations, this was greatest in 2012 (53.6%) and lowest in 2010 (25.0%). The publication rate of presentations is statistically greater than the publication rates of Eurospine (37.8%, P < .001), North American Spine Society (40.0%, P < .001), The International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (45.0%, P = .012), and the Scoliosis Research Society (47.0%, P = .042) but not statistically different than that of Cervical Spine Research Society (65.7%, P = .059). In addition, the average citation count per published article categorized by year ranged from 13 to 31. The average journal impact factor of published articles categorized by year ranged from 2.31 to 2.55.

Conclusions

While LSRS is a relatively young society, these findings point to the high quality of presentations at this scientific meeting. These findings speak to the scientific rigor of presentations at LSRS.

Clinical Relevance

This study helps clinicians and scientists gauge the quality of a research meeting and make informed choices on which gatherings to attend.

Adult Reconstruction Studies Presented at AAOS and AAHKS 2011-2015 Annual Meetings. Is There a Difference in Future Publication?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare adult reconstruction abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) annual meetings.

METHODS

A total of 1355 podium and 1731 poster presentations from the adult reconstruction sections of the AAOS and AAHKS meetings from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed for publication in peer-reviewed literature. Authors who were added or removed from the original abstract and the final manuscript were recorded. The corresponding journals were assigned the most recent impact factor. The publication rates for each annual meeting, the mean changes in authorship and journal's impact factors were compared.

RESULTS

There were 2129 abstracts presented at AAOS and 957 abstracts presented at AAHKS. The overall publication rate was different between AAOS and AAHKS (56% vs 60%, P = .030). Compared with AAOS, there were more AAHKS abstracts published in 2011 (57% vs 77%, P = .0008) and 2012 (57% vs 76%, P = .0001); however, there were no significant differences in 2013, 2014, or 2015. The mean overall change in authors was lower for AAOS compared with AAHKS abstracts (0.78 vs 1.06, P < .0001). The mean journal's impact factors for AAOS and AAHKS publications were also similar (2.86 vs 2.85, P = .874).

CONCLUSION

AAOS and AAHKS abstracts presented in the adult reconstruction subspecialty had a similar overall rate of publication, change in authorship, and impact factor. It would be beneficial if further studies subdivided these into basic and clinical science and review articles.

Publication rates of podium versus poster presentations at the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine meetings: 2006-2010

BACKGROUND

Presentations at scientific meetings are often used to influence clinical practice, yet many presentations are not ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. Previously reported publication rates for orthopaedic specialties have varied from 34% to 52%. In addition, the publication rate of accepted abstracts is a strong indicator of meeting quality, and it has a potential effect on clinical practice. To date, no studies have investigated publication rates in the field of sports medicine, and specifically for abstracts presented at American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) meetings.

PURPOSE

To determine the overall publication rate of abstracts presented at AOSSM annual meetings and whether there were differences in publication rates between poster and podium presentations.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar for all published manuscripts pertaining to abstracts presented at the 2006 to 2010 AOSSM annual meetings. Abstracts were classified according to presentation type (podium, poster) and subsequently were categorized into subspecialty area and study design. For published abstracts, the journal and publication date were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1665 abstracts were submitted to AOSSM annual meetings from 2006 to 2010, with 444 abstracts accepted (26.7% overall acceptance rate); there were 277 podium presentations and 167 posters. Of these 444 abstracts, 298 (67.1%) were published within 3 years in peer-reviewed journals. The overall publication rates for podium and poster presentations were 73.3% and 56.9%, respectively. For the combined years of 2006 to 2010, podium presentations were 2.08 (95% CI, 1.39-3.11) times more likely to be published compared with poster presentations.

CONCLUSION

The overall publication rate of abstracts presented at AOSSM annual meetings (67.1%) was much higher than that reported for other orthopaedic meetings (34%-52%), highlighting the overall educational value and information quality of AOSSM meetings. In addition, there was a significant difference in the overall publication rates for podium and poster presentations. These data suggest that the quality and type of poster and podium presentations may not be equal, and these potential differences should be kept in mind when considering changes in clinical practice according to type of meeting presentation. Furthermore, AOSSM annual meeting program planners should consider these results when investigating ways to further improve the quality of research presented.