Observational analysis of BOA free-papers (2001): from presentation to publication and comparison with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)

Aim

The objectives of this study were to: determine the presentation to publication conversion rate (PPCR) in peer-reviewed indexed journals of free papers and posters presented at 12-14th September 2001 British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) annual meeting and to compare the publication rate with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting in 2001.

Methodology

We looked at all presentations including both podium and poster presentations at British Orthopaedic Association meeting held in 2001 and assessed for subsequent publication as full-text article with a fixed PubMed search protocol. Once the abstract was identified as being published, we noted the name of the journal, citation, and time to presentation. The level of evidence was assigned for each abstract along the guidelines published by the centre for evidence-based medicine, Oxford, UK. This conversion rate was compared with the presentation to publication rate for the AAOS meeting in 2001.

Results

A total of 179 abstracts were presented at the 2001 BOA meeting. 65 of these were published as full-text articles in 30 different journals. The overall publication rate was 36.3%. The publication rate of the papers presented at AAOS annual meeting 2001 was 49% (367/756). The mean time from presentation to publication was 18.6 months (±9.4 months). Three fourths of them were published after 2 years of presentations (63% for AAOS). Majority of studies were either level III or IV. 14 full-text articles were published in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British (JBJS Br) and 8 in the Injury Journal.

Conclusions

This is the first study reporting the publication rate of presentations for BOA meeting and comparing it with the publication rate of AAOS meeting in 2001. The publication rate of BOA presentations is much lower than the AAOS meeting. We believe the publication rate is an important tool in judging the quality of research work and the reputation of a scientific meeting with higher conversion rates suggesting better quality. Thus, more stringent selection criteria need to be introduced so that the selected abstracts can withstand peer-view for publication as full-text articles.     

Interrater reliability in grading abstracts for the orthopaedic trauma association

Only a small proportion of submitted abstracts to the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association can be accepted for podium presentation. Annual program committee members must ensure that the selection of abstracts is free from bias and transparent to investigators. The objectives of this study are to examine the consistency of reviewers in grading abstracts submitted for podium presentations at the 2001 and 2002 Annual Meetings of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and to evaluate whether the grades of the actual podium presentations at the meeting are consistent with the grades based on abstracts only. Reviewers independently graded all abstracts submitted to the Orthopaedic Trauma Association for presentation in a blinded manner. Abstracts submitted by members of the review panel were independently adjudicated by six reviewers who were not members of the committee. Before final decision-making, all reviewers met to discuss the abstracts submitted for oral presentation. Among the 440 papers reviewed in 2001 and 438 papers reviewed in 2002, the interreviewer reliability for abstract review was 0.23 and 0.27, respectively. Despite disagreements in the quality of the abstracts, reviewers achieved consensus by discussions to determine the final program. Agreement among unblinded reviewers of the 67 and 73 podium presentations during the 2001 and 2002 meetings, respectively, did not improve interreviewer agreement. Of the papers of the 2002 meeting that ultimately ranked in the top 20 after the full presentation of the papers, 15 papers originally had been ranked less than 20 in the initial grading. Only one of the top three papers of the meeting originally was ranked in the top three before the meeting.     

Publication Rates in Podium and Poster Presentations at the 2012-2014 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Annual Meetings

Background

Subspecialty conferences are an important forum for disseminating the latest research relevant to clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to identify publication rates in podium and poster abstracts for the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) Annual Meeting and to identify the most common journals of publication and the reasons for nonpublication.

Fate of abstracts from the Paris 1995 European Society of Anaesthesiologists meeting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess the publication rate of full papers presented as abstracts at the 1995 meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists, and to assess factors that might predict subsequent full publication. METHODS: All abstracts presented at the meeting and published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (Suppl 1, 1995) were included. To verify subsequent full publication, a MEDLINE search was performed and validated. We studied the average time from the meeting to publication, the first author's country, the subspeciality, the publishing journal of the full report, the type of presentation (oral or poster), the object of investigation, and the quality of research design and of statistical reporting in the abstract. RESULTS: Of 472 meeting abstracts, 199 (42.2%) were eventually published. The average (+/- SD) delay between meeting and publication was 16.8 (15.6) months (range 24-60 months). Most papers (79.4%) had been published within 3 yr of the meeting. Circulation, pharmacology and intensive care papers had the highest rates of publication. Sixty-three journals attracted papers, with the British Journal of Anaesthesia publishing most (n = 29). No difference in subsequent publication was found between oral and poster presentations. Randomized trials and animal research were more likely to be published. The number of authors or their positions differed between the abstract and the full publication in 145 cases (72.9%); the first author was changed in 43 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of the abstracts accepted at the 1995 European Society of Anesthesiologists' meeting were subsequently published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in the 3 yr following the meeting. Many changes in authorship occurred between the abstract and the full publication. The study architecture and the object of investigation predicted full 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.     

An observational study of duplicate presentation rates between two national orthopedic meetings.

BACKGROUND: National meetings such as those of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) are invaluable in the dissemination of new research findings. Given the limits of meeting agendas, investigators who present the same paper at multiple meetings prevent other presentations on potentially important original research. To determine the incidence of duplicate presentation of research between recent COA and AAOS meetings and between national meetings (AAOS and subspecialty), we conducted an observational study. METHODS: We hand-searched all podium papers and posters from the 2001 COA annual meeting for duplicate presentation at the 2001 and 2002 AAOS annual meetings and subspecialty meetings held in the USA. We evaluated summary data abstracted from the duplicate presentations for consistency. RESULTS: Of 148 presentations at the 2001 COA meeting, 29 presentations (paper and poster) were duplicated at the 2001 or 2002 AAOS meeting: effectively 1 paper in 5 (19.5%). Canadian investigators were significantly more likely to present the same paper at both meetings than Americans (79% v. 13%, respectively; p < 0.01). Those who presented papers at COA altered their AAOS presentations in a variety of ways: by changing the wording in the title of their paper (24% of the time), adding or removing authors (38%), changing authorship order (34%) and changing the sample size (31%). Duplicate presentation rates between AAOS and other orthopedic subspecialty meetings averaged 11.4% (range 3.4%-26.4%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 20% duplicate presentation rate between the COA and AAOS annual meetings, and an 11% rate between the AAOS and subspecialty meetings. Stricter enforcement of guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings at both national meetings may limit this practice.     

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the 23rd (2013) and 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses: We are not improving

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine 1) the publication rates of podium and poster presentations from the 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses in peer-reviewed journals and (2) compare these rates with publication rates from the 20th congress (2007) published previously. The secondary objective was to determine the time lag to publication and compare this data with the data from the 20th congress.MethodsAll abstracts from the scientific programs of the 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses were identified and computerized PubMed searches were conducted to determine whether an abstract had been followed by publication of a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals. The time lag to publication was also noted.ResultsOf the 993 presentation abstracts (302 podium and 691 poster presentations) from the 23rd congress and of the 940 presentation abstracts (310 podium and 630 poster presentations) from the 24th congress, 278 (28%) and 234 (24.9%) were followed by a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals indexed by PubMed, respectively. The rates of publication of the podium and poster presentations were 39.4% (119/302) and 23% (159/691), respectively from the 23rd and 37.7% (117/310) and 18.6% (117/630), respectively from the 24th congresses. The mean time to publication of the abstracts from the 23rd congress was 12.8 ± 18.8 (median: 13, range: −140 to 47) months and the mean time to publication of the abstracts from the 24th congress was 11.1 ± 14.42 (median: 11, range: −73 to 39) months. Fifty (50/278, 18%) abstracts from the 23rd congress (mean −11, range: [−32]−[−1], median −5 months) and 37 (37/234, 15.8%) abstracts from the 24th congress (mean −10.4, range: [−73]−[−1], median −4 months) were published as full-text articles prior to the presentation at the congress.ConclusionThe vast majority of abstracts presented at 23rd (2013) and the 24th (2014) National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congresses were not followed by publication of a full-text article in peer-reviewed journals. The publication rates of the abstracts presented at these congresses did not improve when compared with the 20th (2007) congress.     

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.     

Publication of abstracts submitted to the annual meeting of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America

A computerized MEDLINE search was performed to determine the publication pattern of the abstracts submitted for podium presentation at the 1991-1994 annual meetings of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA). The publication percentage for all papers submitted to the POSNA meetings from 1991 through 1994 was 45%. Fifty-three percent of papers accepted for podium presentation were ultimately published in comparison with 38% of those not accepted for presentation (p < 0.001). The mean time to publication was 29 months and did not differ significantly for the two groups. The majority of papers (65%) were published in either Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (48%) or The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) (17%). The frequency of ultimate publication of abstracts submitted to the annual POSNA meetings compares favorably with the rates for other medical subspecialties.     

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.     

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate and time-course of peer-reviewed publication of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the American Urological Association (AUA). METHODS: All abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the AUA from 1998 to 2000 were searched in the PubMed database. To assess any significant predictors of ultimate peer-reviewed publication, abstract number, meeting year, presentation type (podium vs poster), type of research (basic vs clinical), date of publication and session name (i.e. prostate cancer: advanced) were entered into a database. RESULTS: The overall rate of publication was 37.8%. Survival analysis indicated that most abstracts were published within 2 years of their respective meetings. Univariate and multivariate techniques showed that none of the tested covariates were significant predictors of publication. CONCLUSIONS: Information presented at the AUA annual meetings should be carefully considered by physicians before implementation into their clinical practice. Researchers are encouraged to publish their data.     

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.     

When will I see you again? The fate of research findings from international wound care conferences*

Medical conferences provide a forum for the rapid dissemination of research directly to health professionals and academics. However, the published record of poster and oral presentations from these meetings is usually limited to abstracts. We aimed to assess how many wound studies presented as conference abstracts were eventually published in journals and to identify the factors that predicted publication. The study was a retrospective review. We identified abstracts relating to oral and poster presentation from two large wound conferences. Following data extraction from the abstracts, a systematic search was conducted to examine if the research was subsequently published as a journal article. A time-to-event analysis was conducted to assess predictive associations between features of the research reported in the conference abstracts and time to full publication. In total, 492 abstracts from two European wound care conferences were identified (467 after exclusions). Of the abstracts included, 60% (279) were for posters and 40% (188) were for oral presentations. Over half of the abstracts (53%) reported results from case studies or case series design. In total, only 57 (12%) of the abstracts included resulted in a related publication. Analysis suggested that those studies reporting positive findings were significantly more likely to be published (hazard ratio 1.79, P= 0.001, 95% CIs 1.26-2.55). Few studies presented as conference abstracts at these two wounds conferences were subsequently published. This may be because of the low methodological quality of studies accepted for poster or oral presentation.     

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.     

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.