Publish or be damned? The fate of abstracts presented at the International Continence Society Meeting 2003

AIMS: This study examined the presented abstracts from the International Continence Society (ICS) Meeting, 2003. It analyzed the rate and timing of full publication, the factors predicting successful publication, the consistency of reporting between presented abstracts and published abstracts, and the barriers to publication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The abstracts presented at ICS 2003, were categorized according to topic, nationality, and a range of methodological factors. Using keywords and author names, PubMed was searched for published papers corresponding to the work presented. For abstracts that had been published, the original abstract was compared with the abstract accompanying the full-text paper. For abstracts that could not be identified in PubMed, the main authors were surveyed with an email questionnaire, asking about reasons for non-publication. RESULTS: Of 130 presented abstracts, 77 (61.6%) had been published in full by February 2006. Authors from the US were significantly more likely to have had their work published. Uniquely among topics, "Clinical Pharmacology" abstracts were significantly more likely to have been published. Fourteen (18.2%) abstracts were classified as having major inconsistencies between the presented abstract and the abstract accompanying the full-text paper. Inconsistencies between presented and published abstracts were significantly associated with delay in publication on Kaplan-Meier analysis. Most unpublished abstracts had never been submitted for publication. CONCLUSIONS: The high publication rate reflects well on the scientific quality of the ICS meeting. All authors should be encouraged to publish their work after presentation. Caution is advised when referencing or generalizing from abstracts that have not been published in full.     

An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications

BACKGROUND: Research abstracts are frequently referenced in orthopaedic textbooks and influence orthopaedic care. However, little is known about the quality of information provided in the abstracts, the frequency of publication of complete papers after presentation of abstracts, or any discrepancies between abstracts and published papers. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of information provided in orthopaedic abstracts, rates of publication of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts, predictors of publication of full-text articles, and consistency between abstracts and full-text articles. METHODS: We retrieved all abstracts from the 1996 scientific program of the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. For each abstract, we recorded the completeness of reporting and key features of the study design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. A computerized Medline and PubMed search established whether the abstract had been followed by publication of a full-text article. Finally, we evaluated the consistency of reporting between abstracts and final publications. RESULTS: The program included 465 abstracts, 66% of which were on prognostic studies. All abstracts described the study design, and 70.7% of the designs were observational. Key methodological issues were reported in less than half of the abstracts, and information on data analysis was reported in <15%. One hundred and fifty-nine (34%) of the 465 abstracts were followed by publication of a full-text article. The mean time to publication (and standard deviation) was 17.6 +/- 12 months (range, one to fifty-six months). Inconsistencies between the abstract and the full-text article included the primary outcome measure, which differed 14% of the time, and the results, which differed 19% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of the orthopaedic abstracts in this sample were not followed by publication of a full-text paper. The overall quality of reporting in abstracts proved inadequate, and inconsistencies between the final published paper and the original abstract occurred frequently. The routine use of abstracts as a guide to orthopaedic practice needs to be reconsidered.     

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.     

Conversion rates of abstracts presented at the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) Annual Scientific Meeting into full-text journal articles

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? It is well known that the transition of a presented abstract in a scientific meeting to a journal article improves the quality of the meeting and prevents an abstract being incorporated into meta‐analyses or practice guidelines without proper appraisal. This is the first analysis of USANZ Annual Scientific Meeting abstracts’ conversion to full publication. With relatively low publication rates compared to other international meetings, this review identifies the need for mechanisms to encourage USANZ researchers to convert their abstracts into published articles. The numbers and characteristics of the abstracts presented at the Annual Scientific Meetings (ASM) of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) that are converted to peer‐reviewed publications have not previously been analysed and published. We undertook a review of all abstracts presented at the USANZ ASM from 2005 to 2009. A PubMed search was performed between 15 June and 15 July 2012, using a search algorithm to identify the full‐text publications of the presented abstracts. Correlation between abstract characteristics and publication rate was then examined to distinguish the predictors for publications. Of 614 abstracts that were presented at USANZ ASM between 2005 and 2009, 183 papers were published, giving a publication rate of 29.80%. The papers were predominantly published in urological journals and were more likely to be published if they were presented by an international author or were retrospective studies or if basic science research. The mean (SD) time to publication was 14.46 (13.89) months and the mean Impact Factor of journals where papers were published was 2.90. The overall publication rate was relatively low compared with other urological meetings held in America and Europe. USANZ has a challenge of encouraging higher‐quality research from the authors to further enhance its publication rate and consequently the calibre of the meeting itself.     

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.     

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 outcome for research presented at the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland annual meetings

BACKGROUND The Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland (VSGBI) annual meeting is a major international vascular surgery conference. Studies suggest that the percentage of presentations that result in full-text publications are a measure of the quality of the meeting. We investigated the publication outcome of abstracts presented to the VSGBI in 2001 and 2002. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively identified abstracts from the conference programmes and conducted a detailed electronic Medline and PubMed search to determine publication. We collected data regarding the study design, subject matter,publishing journal, time to publication, institution of origin, impact factors and RAE levels. RESULTS There were 63 publications from 106 abstracts (59.4%), with a median impact factor of 3.507. Prospective observational studies accounted for 20.6% of publications, with abdominal aortic aneurysms being the commonest subject matter(34.9%). The median time to publication was 12 months, with the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery publishing 33.3% of the articles. Leicester achieved the highest number of publications and the majority of work came from centres with Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) level scores of 4, university centres accounted for 74.6% of publications. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that when compared to equivalent meetings in other specialties and geographical regions, the annual meeting of the VSGBI is of the very highest quality.     

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.     

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 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 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.     

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.     

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.     

Factors Associated with Publication Following Presentation at a Transplantation Meeting

Full publication of abstracts presented at scientific meetings ranges from 25-74%. To determine the rate and factors associated with publication in organ transplantation, we examined abstracts presented at the American Transplant Congress in May 2000. Of 1147 abstracts, 607 (53%) achieved full publication at 4.5 years (mean 1.32 +/- 0.88 years). Fifty-nine percent (357/607) were published in three transplantation journals. For randomized trials, the proportion published was 61%. On multivariate analysis, industry sponsorship (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.04-3.06), basic science research (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.32-2.14), non-American center (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.28-2.20) and oral presentation (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.07-1.73) were independent predictors of full publication. Nearly half of all abstracts presented at a transplantation meeting remain unpublished. This finding needs to be considered when interpreting systematic reviews in the field of transplantation.     

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.