Publication rate of General Surgery abstracts presented at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Annual Scientific Congress

Background

A commonly used metric for evaluating the quality and impact of presentations at a scientific meeting is the frequency with which the findings presented are published as full research papers in peer‐reviewed journals. The purpose of this study was to determine the full article publication rates of abstract presentations for General Surgery and related sub‐specialities at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Annual Scientific Congress (RACS ASC) from 2010 to 2014.

Methods

All General Surgical (including its sub‐speciality groups) abstracts presented at the RACS ASC from 2010 to 2014 were identified from the ANZ Journal of Surgery. We determined the rates of full paper publication, time to publication, journals of publication and specialty rates of conversion. Full article publications were identified using the PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases.

Results

A total of 1386 abstracts were identified, of which 356 (26%) were converted to full paper publications. The number of abstracts presented annually increased from 206 in 2010 to 386 in 2014, but the percentage of abstracts converted to full paper publications did not follow any temporal trend. The majority (74%) of full papers were published within 2 years of the abstract presentation.

Conclusion

In total, 26% of General Surgery abstracts presented at the RACS ASC from 2010 to 2014 were converted to full paper publications. This could provide a baseline against which to judge the quality of presentations at other national General Surgical congresses, as well as at future RACS ASC meetings.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 bias in presentations to the Annual Scientific Congress

Background : Free papers presented to the Annual Scientific Congress (ASC) of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) were reviewed for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. Reports were examined for evidence of publication bias. Methods : Suitable free papers were identified from the proceedings of the meetings and authors were contacted to obtain information about the research reported and any publications resulting from it. Results : Responses were obtained from 302 of 576 presentations considered suitable. A total of 55% of responding authors reported publication of their paper. Basic science papers were most likely to be published. There was a significant bias in favour of publication of positive results (98 of 139 positive vs 76 of 159 inconclusive or negative reports; P < 0.01). Retrospective data were as likely to be published as prospective (51% and 57%, respectively). Reports describing studies of high‐level evidence were more likely to be published in journals with a high impact factor. Conclusion : The ASC is a comprehensive meeting that attracts a wide range of free papers from most sections of the RACS. There appears to be no evidence of bias in selection of papers for inclusion in the meeting but there is bias in the subsequent publication, which favours positive reports.     

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.     

‘Schicksal’ wissenschaftlicher Beiträge auf grossen Anästhesiekongressen

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented during the German Anaesthesia Congress (DAK) in MEDLINE-listed journals in comparison to the publication rate of abstracts presented during the meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists (ESA). METHODS: All abstracts of free papers (FP, orals) and posters of the 1994 DAK and the 1994 ESA meeting were included. Over a period of approximately 7 years (1993 to May 1999) the appearance of authors and abstracts topics in the literature were searched with the help of MEDLINE. Only original papers were included in the analysis. RESULTS: All 322 abstracts (268 FPs and 54 posters) of the DAK and all 244 abstracts (81 FP and 163 posters) of the ESA were analyzed. A total 122 of the DAK abstracts (37.9% of all abstracts) and 111 of the ESA abstracts (45.5% of all abstracts) were published in MEDLINE-listed journals. Posters presented at the DAK were as published often (37%) as were oral presentations (38%). Of the 122 abstracts of the DAK that were published 71 (58.2%) were published in English (in 38 different journals) and 51 (41.8%) were published in German (in 8 different journals), whereas 102 (92%) of the ESA abstracts were published in english (in 42 different journals). CONCLUSION: The overall portion of abstracts of the DAK published in MEDLINE indexed journals within 7 years was disappointing. The reasons for this may include deliberate avoidance of a publication (e.g. due to lack of interest to publish, no time) or low quality of the abstract that hinders publication in a MEDLINE indexed journal.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.