Publication rate of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons Annual Meeting

OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of peer-reviewed publications arising from the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS), and to assess urological trainees' attitudes to research in relationship to the pursuit of Specialist Registrar (SpR) training numbers and their perception of academic urology in the UK. METHODS: Publications resulting from presentations at the annual meetings of the BAUS 2001 and 2002 were searched for using the PubMed database. Variables that might influence the subsequent publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals were analysed. Whether institutions from other countries had similar publication rates to those in the UK was also assessed. SpRs were interviewed about their motivation to convert presentations to publications before and after their appointment to SpR training. RESULTS: In July 2004, 142 of 449 abstracts presented at BAUS 2001 and 2002 were published, giving a publication rate of approximately 42% on Kaplan-Meier analysis. The rate of publication appeared to continue to the end of the period of searching for publications. The publication rate arising from UK presentations was lower than that from the non-UK presentations (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.15, P = 0.14). Publication rates from podium and poster presentations were similar. Urology journals accounted for 75% of the publications. Of the SpRs evaluated, 83% did research and presented papers to obtain a training number rather than because of an inherent interest to pursue an academic career. CONCLUSIONS: The conversion rate from BAUS presentation to peer-reviewed publication at 36 months was similar on Kaplan-Meier analysis to that of the American Urological Association (AUA, 38%). Interestingly, the rate of publication from the AUA seems to be faster than from BAUS. In addition, presentations from outside the UK appeared to be published faster than those from the UK. Delegates attending these conferences need to consider this when deciding whether a particular presentation will influence their practice. British urology requires academics who are interested in pursuing high-quality research, and which is presented at major conferences with an intention to publish it in peer-reviewed journals.     

Are Abstracts Presented at the EAU Meeting Followed by Publication in Peer-Reviewed Journals?: A Critical Analysis

PURPOSE: Our goal was to assess the rate and time-course of peer-reviewed publication of abstracts presented at the European Association of Urology (EAU) Annual Meeting and to identify factors predictive of publication. METHODS: All abstracts accepted for presentation at the 2000 and 2001 EAU annual meetings were identified from the related published supplements in European Urology. The subsequent publication rate was estimated for the corresponding studies based on a scan of Medline covering a 5-year period following the meetings. We examined whether the following factors were associated with publication rate: research type, study subject, and country of origin. The analysis was performed using logistic regression of the dichotomous variable of publication versus non-publication and the candidate factors. RESULTS: Overall, 47.3% of 1406 abstracts presented at the EAU meetings were followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals. Pre-clinical research studies were more likely to be published than clinical studies (53.3% vs 45%, p<0.05). Prospective series were more likely to be published than retrospective ones (46.5% vs 32.2%, p<0.05). Studies presented at the meetings were mostly from Europe (74.2%). Mean time to publication was 8.6 months, and in most cases, the reports were published in The Journal of Urology and European Urology. The mean IF of journals where papers were published was 1.95. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the abstracts presented at the EAU are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, usually within 2 years after presentation. The publication rate differs significantly according to country of origin, study subject, and research type.     

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

Many shoulder and elbow abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting are cited in the orthopaedic literature or are used to guide orthopaedic practice, but not all of these abstracts are submitted, survive peer review, or eventually are published. Presuming unpublished works have not been scientifically confirmed, one could question whether it is academically responsible to cite abstracts presented at the AAOS before they are peer-reviewed and published. To partly address this issue we determined the peer-reviewed publication rate for 558 abstracts (233 papers and 325 posters) presented at the shoulder and elbow sessions of the AAOS from 1999 to 2004. In April 2007, we searched the computerized database MEDLINE and PubMed for published articles based on these abstracts. We examined the published articles to assess publication rate, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors, and change in conclusions of abstracts. The overall publication rate in peer-reviewed journals was 58% (321 of 558), similar to other orthopaedic meetings and medical disciplines. We believe it is unacceptable to cite shoulder and elbow abstracts submitted to the AAOS because only slightly more than (1/2) (58%) of them are authenticated scientifically.     

Publication rates of abstracts presented at annual musculoskeletal tumor society meetings

Beware of the unpublished abstract! What is the publication rate of abstracts presented at Musculoskeletal Tumor Society meetings, and how does this compare with other orthopaedic and medical meetings? Three hundred thirty-six podium presentations from six annual meetings were identified and their publication was searched at a minimum of 3 years after the event. An effort was made to determine what percent of these abstracts eventually were published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was determined that 137 abstracts were published for a publication rate of 41%. The average time between presentation at the meeting and publication was 21.8 plus or minus 13.5 months. The published articles appeared in 48 peer-reviewed journals. The rate of publication and time until publication was similar to other orthopaedic meetings and to other medical disciplines. Changes to the cohort, title, or authors occurred in approximately (1/3) of the published articles compared with the abstracts. These results suggest that for various reasons the majority of presented material at Musculoskeletal Tumor Society meetings may not survive peer review and may not be scientifically valid.     

Transition from congress abstract to full publication for clinical trials presented at laser meetings

The present study aims to identify (1) what proportion of abstracts of clinical trials presented at The American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS) annual meetings are published as full reports, (2) time to publication, and (3) factors that may predict the publication of research in peer-reviewed journals. Two investigators independently hand-searched all abstracts of the ASLMS meetings to identify all reports of clinical trials. Details of sample size, the country of origin, topic of research, type of presentation, type of laser, direction of outcome, and statistical significance were recorded for each abstract. To determine the full publication status of each study, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE was searched. A total of 198 abstracts were identified. Of these, 87 abstracts (44%) have been fully published. The average time from presentation at the meeting to full publication was 57 months (95% confidence interval = 52-61), and the estimated rate of abstracts published at 1, 2, and 4 years was 15, 30, and 38%, respectively. There is significant tendency for being fully published in high-power laser studies, with USA as country of origin, and orally presented. Our findings supports this opinion that conference abstracts can be an important source for systematic reviews and failure to identify trials presented in congresses might threaten the validity of systematic reviews.     

Publication rates of presentations made at annual meetings of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine and the Arthroscopy Association of North America

The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rates of presentations made at the annual meetings of 2 sports medicine specialty societies--the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) and the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA). We created a database covering annual AOSSM meetings from 1990 to 1993 (4 years) and annual AANA meetings from 1991 to 1993 (3 years) and searched the Melvyl Medline Plus database for abstracts from 1990 through 1998 to determine which had been published in peer-reviewed journals. Of the 333 abstracts listed for the 1990 to 1993 meetings, 198 (59.5%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. Publication rates of the AOSSM and AANA meetings were 68.1% and 50.9%, respectively. The majority of articles were published in American Journal of Sports Medicine (40.1%) and Arthroscopy (30.3%). Publication rates of presentations made at meetings of these sports medicine specialty societies are high and exceed the publication rates associated with meetings of other medicine specialty societies.     

The publication rates of presentations at major Spine Specialty Society meetings (NASS, SRS, ISSLS)

STUDY DESIGN: A review of all the presentations at three major spine specialty meetings held over a 3-year period. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of publication in peer-reviewed journals after presentations at major spine meetings conducted annually by the following three organizations: North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), and International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The rate of publication for presentations at national and international meetings has been determined for medical and surgical subspecialties. This rate has been used to judge the quality of the content of the meetings and to determine the validity of the research presentations. METHODS: All presentations either in poster or oral presentation form were entered into a database covering a 3-year period for spine specialty meetings conducted annually by the following three organizations: NASS 1990 to 1992, SRS 1991 to 1993, and ISSLS 1991 to 1993. A computer search for each abstract was performed with the Melvyl Medline Plus database to determine if the abstract had been published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1990 to the end of 1997. Publication rates for presentations at these three meetings were determined over a 3-year period. RESULTS: A total of 1186 abstracts were listed over a 3-year period in the final programs of these three meetings for the years 1991 to 1993 (SRS, ISSLS) and 1990 to 1992 (NASS). Of these 1186 abstracts, 516 were published in peer-reviewed journals, giving an overall publication rate of 43.5%. The publication rates for the three different meetings (NASS, SRS, ISSLS) were similar, with values of 40%, 47%, and 45% respectively. More than 90% of the publications resulting from these meetings were published within a period of 4 years from the data of the meeting. CONCLUSIONS: The publication rates of presentations at three major spine specialty meetings are high and quite comparable with the publication rates of meetings in other medical subspecialties. This reflects the high quality of the meeting programs and validates their selection process.     

Fate of abstracts presented at the World Congress of Endourology: are they followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals?

PURPOSE: To estimate the acceptance rate of peer-reviewed journals, to describe the time course of subsequent full publication, and to identify those with characteristics associated with publication of the abstracts presented at the World Congress of Endourology (WCE). METHODS: All abstracts accepted for presentation at the 2001 and 2002 WCE meetings were identified from the published supplements to the Journal of Endourology. The subsequent publication rate for the corresponding studies was evaluated by scanning MEDLINE for the 5-year period after the meetings. RESULTS: Overall, 20.5% of the abstracts were followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals. Abstracts on transurethral, laparoscopic, and percutaneous procedures had the highest publication rates (25.5%, 25%, and 24.3%, respectively). Studies from North America had the highest publication rate (29.2%). The mean time to publication was 14.6 months. There was an 80% chance that an eventually published abstract was in print 2 years after presentation. The largest number of the reports were published in the Journal of Endourology (75 of 234; 32%), the official publication of the society that sponsors the WCE. CONCLUSIONS: Only one fifth of the abstracts presented at the WCE are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. Attendees should be aware of this limitation, and scientific committees should be encouraged to be more selective. Although presentation at major urological congresses constitutes an invaluable method for rapid scientific dissemination, abstracts contain data that usually are difficult to access and of questionable validity. In this respect, investigators are encouraged to publish their data.     

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Research projects are frequently presented at national meetings not only to make the data available, but also to further critically evaluate the project. The ultimate goal remains publication of the research. We assessed the publication rate of presentations at 1993-95 annual meetings. METHODS: All presentations at the scientific sessions were searched in the computerized database Melvyl MEDLINE and PubMed. The papers were categorized in 6 broad groups. RESULTS: The overall proportion of presentations that were published was 32%. Clinical papers in pediatrics had the highest publication rate, followed by basic science research in laryngology and plastics. CONCLUSION: The publication rate of 32% is lower than the rate at meetings in other fields, reflecting variability in selection criteria for the presentations and quality of abstracts presented. Basic science presentations did not have a greater publication rate as compared to clinical presentations.     

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand Annual Scientific Meetings

BackgroundThe numbers and characteristics of the abstracts presented at the Annual Scientific Meetings (ASM) of the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) that are converted to peer-reviewed publications have not been analyzed previously.MethodsAll abstracts presented at the TSANZ ASM from 2013 to 2017 were reviewed. A literature search was performed using a search algorithm to identify the full-text publications of the presented abstracts. Correlation between abstract characteristics and publication rate was then examined using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier curves to distinguish the predictors for publication.Over the 5-year period, 576 abstracts were presented, with a total of 164 (28.6%) presentations converted to publications. The majority of publications occurred within the first 3 years, with the mean time to publication being 16.6 (standard deviation = 14.6) months. The median impact factor for published research was 4.74 (interquartile range = 3.06-5.58). Multivariate analysis identified clinical science papers, systematic reviews and surveys (likelihood ratio = 1.42, 5.02, and 2.01; P = .040, .000, and .010, respectively) as the most important predictors for publication.ConclusionsThe rate of abstracts presented at the TSANZ ASM over 5 years that were converted to publication in a peer-reviewed journal was 28.6%. Clinical papers, systematic reviews, and surveys were more likely to be published. An ongoing strict abstract selection process will contribute to improving conversion of abstracts into full-text peer-reviewed articles.     

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the orthopaedic research society

Although the timely conveyance of information at national meetings like those of the Orthopaedic Research Society is critical to the dissemination of new scientific research, the ultimate goal of most researchers is to publish work in peer-reviewed journals referenced in Medline. All of the abstracts that were presented at the podium at the 1991. 1992. and 1993 annual meetings of the Orthopaedic Research Society and printed in the appropriate yearly transactions were included in this study (n = 888, 296 per year). A detailed computerized Medline search of each author on the abstract and the appropriate keywords from the title was performed until a publication was found; otherwise, the abstract was excluded. The database was searched through June 30. 1997. A total of 463 (52%) of the abstracts were published by July 1, 1997. The percentages for each individual year were similar: 148 (50%) were published in 1991,162 (55%) in 1992, and 153 (52%) in 1993. Publication of the majority of these papers (93.1%, 431 of 463) occurred within 4 years of the respective meeting. The Journal of Orthopaedic Research published the majority of these papers (17.5%), followed by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), the Journal of Biomechanics, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and Spine (each 5.2%). No significant differences in the rate of publication were observed between papers of 10 broad subject categories (p = 0.103). These results are similar to those from other basic science meetings and to the recently reported results for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.     

Full publication of abstracts of randomised controlled trials published at International Continence Society meetings'

AIMS: To find out how many abstracts reporting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that are submitted to scientific meetings of the International Continence Society (ICS) are later published in full, and any predictors of full publication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The appropriate issues of "Neurourology and Urodynamics" and the Proceedings of the ICS for 1998 and 1999 were hand-searched for the abstracts reporting RCTs. Bibliographic databases (Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, Psychlit, CINAHL) were searched, using the authors' names, to find full publications. Authors were contacted when no full publication was found to check that all full publications had been found. This was repeated for 1987. RESULTS: Sixty-three abstracts reporting RCTs were found in 1998 and 1999. Twenty-five of these (40%) were followed by full publication. The only characteristic that predicted full publication was the use of a no treatment control group. In 1987, 16 of 19 abstracts (84%) went on to be published in full. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of full publication of abstracts reporting RCTs submitted to recent ICS meetings is low. It is lower than the rate of 56% found in other meetings. As it is widely regarded as unethical not to publish in full, ICS members should make every effort to write-up studies for peer-reviewed publication.     

DOES PRESENTATION AT THE REGISTRARS’ PAPERS DAY PREDICT FUTURE PUBLICATION?

There are research requirements for trainees to be eligible to present for their final examinations (Fellowship of Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, FRACS). One option is the presentation of a paper or poster at a meeting of which abstracts are subject to review and selection. This includes presentation at the annual Registrars' Papers Day (RPD) in New South Wales. There has been some debate surrounding whether research requirements are fulfilled by presentation at such meetings. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal should be the ultimate aim. A high publication rate will validate the quality of the meeting. All abstracts submitted to the RPD in 1998 and 1999 were analysed. A Medline search was performed in 2005 to identify publication of these presentations in a peer-reviewed journal. Variables of the study that were potentially predictive of subsequent publication were analysed. This included type of presentation, surgical specialty, clinical or laboratory-based study, study design (prospective or retrospective) and sample size. Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction was used to compare two independent proportions and significance was set at P < 0.05. The publication rates were: oral presentations 50% (17/34), poster presentations 39% (9/23) and rejected presentations 20% (2/10). The mean and median time to publication was 23.8 and 21.0 months. Prospective design was the only variable identified to have a statistically significant effect on the publication rate (P < 0.002). The most common publishing journal was the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery (12 of 26). Overall consistency (author and study sample consistency) from presentation to publication was 32%. The overall 46% publication rate of this state-based trainees-organized meeting compares favourably with international meetings. The research requirement of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), which includes presentation at the RPD in New South Wales, produces good quality papers for publication.     

English publication rate of 3,205 abstracts presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association and the Annual Research Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association

Background

Previous studies reported that the publication rate of abstracts presented at overseas meetings was around 50 %. The study objectives were to determine the rate of publication in English-language journals and the impact factor (IF) for all papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Annual Research Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOAR), and to compare the publication rates and IFs from abstracts accepted for oral versus poster presentations.

Methods

Titles and first authors were identified for 1,676 abstracts of free papers accepted for presentation to the JOA in 2006 and 2007, and 1,529 abstracts to the JOAR from 2006 to 2008. We identified the associated journal publications by searching PubMed, and IFs were determined using the journal citation reports. The publication rates and IFs for papers accepted for oral versus poster presentations were compared using statistical analysis.

Results

The overall publication rate was 25.5 % from the JOA and 50 % from the JOAR. There were no significant differences in yearly publication rates, or between oral and poster presentations for each year. The average IFs for all publications from the JOA was 2.45 and that from the JOAR was 3.5. There were no significant differences in yearly IFs, or between oral and poster presentations for each year (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The rate from JOAR was similar to publication rates for abstracts presented at overseas orthopedic meetings, however, the rate from JOA was half that of publication rates for abstracts presented at overseas orthopedic meetings, indicating that JOA may provide a below average contribution of new medical data to the international scientific community. No significant difference in publication rates between oral and poster presentations were found, and this suggests a need for improvement of the review system for the annual meeting and that review scores at the meetings did not predict the publication fate of abstracts.     

Scientific impact of women in academic surgery

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the scientific impact of women in the surgical literature. METHODS: Gender of the principal investigator of every abstract presented at the 2002, 2003, and 2004 annual meetings of the Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons was identified by internet search. Resulting publications were identified using PubMed. Journal impact factor and number of article citations were determined using ISI Web of Knowledge. RESULTS: The principal investigator's gender was identified for 649 (98.8%) of the 657 abstracts presented at the 2002--2004 AAS meetings. Women authored 9.1% of abstracts and 11.8% of total resulting publications. The publication rate of abstracts by women was significantly higher than that of men (69.5% versus 52.4%, P = 0.0132). There was a trend toward higher average impact factors of journals in which female authors published (3.265 versus 2.673, P = 0.0626). There was no significant difference in mean number of citations per publication. The principal investigator's gender was identified for all 337 (100%) abstracts presented at the 2002--2004 SUS meetings. Women authored 11.0% of abstracts and 11.2% of resulting publications. Publication rates and average citation numbers were similar for female and male authors. The average impact factors of journals in which women published were significantly higher (4.741 versus 3.348, P = 0.0082). CONCLUSIONS: Although women comprise a small proportion of principal investigators on abstracts presented at these conferences, the quality of their presented work is equal to or better than those of their male counterparts.     

Analysis of subsequent publication of scientific orally presented abstracts of the French National Congress of Radiology. Part II: Focus on the French abstracts

AimTo evaluate the publication rate of scientific abstracts that were presented orally at the 2008, 2009, and 2010 annual meetings of the French Society of Radiology by French radiologists, and to perform a French regional analysis.Material and methodsOrally presented abstracts were identified by examining online abstract books of the 2008, 2009, and 2010 annual meetings of the French Society of Radiology, and cross-checked by reviewing the paper version of abstracts for the same period. Only abstracts from French teams were selected. The administrative region of submission was noted for each abstract and for each region the total population, the number of active radiologists, the number of active members of the French Society of Radiology and the number of academic radiologists were noted. Imaging subspecialties were also noted.Results625 abstracts were identified resulting in 268 publications (publication rate: 43%). The median number of presentations and publications per region was 18 (range: 1–255) and 7 (range: 0–101), respectively. The ratio per million inhabitants was 7.5 and 3 respectively. The median number of presentations and publications per 100 active radiologists (respectively members of the FSR) was 7 and 3 (respectively 10 and 4). The median number of presentations and publications per academic radiologist were 2.6, and 1.2, respectively. The regional variations for each indicator were high (40–180%). Three subspecialties had a publication rate of more than 50%: thoracic imaging (58%), abdominal imaging (52%), and genitourinary imaging (51%).ConclusionThe publication rate of orally presented French scientific abstracts was high, with important variations according to the regions of origin and imaging subspecialties.     

What is the ultimate fate of presented abstracts? The conversion rates of presentations to publications over a five-year period from three North American plastic surgery meetings

BACKGROUND:

Advancements in clinical decision-making are influenced by presentations made at scientific conferences or publications in journals with extensive readership. However, many ideas shared at annual conferences fail to be published, and most surgeons attend these meetings only sporadically.

OBJECTIVE:

To quantify the conversion rates of meeting presentations to publications in North American plastic surgery.

METHODS:

MEDLINE (OvidSP) and PubMed databases were cross-referenced with abstracts accepted for podium presentation at the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and American Association of Plastic Surgeons annual meetings from 2003 to 2007. Parameters reviewed included publication rate, time to publication, subspecialty, trial type, publication journal and journal impact factor.

RESULTS:

Over the five-year study period, 45.00% of the 888 presentations were published in peer-reviewed journals. The mean time to publication was 22 months (range 1.00 to 85.90 months). In total, 57.00% of the 400 publications appeared in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; 47.20% of publications were case series study design. The majority of publications were of the reconstruction subspecialty (31.00%). Abstracts from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons had the highest conversion rate (57.70%). Publications based on abstracts presented at the American Association of Plastic Surgeons had the highest mean journal impact factor (2.33). The Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons had the highest total number of publications (n=161).

CONCLUSIONS:

From the three North American annual general meetings reviewed, there was a modest conversion rate of mainly reconstructive case series published predominantly in a single journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Several years often pass from the genesis of a research hypothesis to final publication, and because the majority of presentations fail to be published, presentations should be observed with a critical eye given the more stringent peer review process and time required for final publication. In an effort to improve conversion rates, departments and faculty members must foster a culture that prioritizes publication.