Publication Outcomes of Abstracts Presented at an American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Annual Scientific Meeting

Objective

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP) Annual Scientific Meeting is an important forum for early dissemination of novel ideas. However, unlike published studies in peer‐reviewed journals, reviewers select abstracts based solely on a general summary of the research. Analyses of the scientific impact and the publication record of the ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting have not been previously described. This study characterizes publication trends and outcomes associated with abstracts presented at the ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting.

Methods

We identified all abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation at the 2006 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting. Using a defined search algorithm, we conducted a manual PubMed search for each accepted abstract, which was repeated by a custom computerized search, and analyzed the resulting journal title, impact factor, and time to publication.

Results

A total of 2,149 abstracts were analyzed. The overall publication ratio was 59.1%. The mean ± SD time from abstract presentation to publication was 18.2 ± 15.2 months with a mean ± SD impact factor of 5.61 ± 4.20. Overall, studies presented in oral format were significantly more likely to be published than poster presentations (P < 0.0001). The average time to publication was significantly shorter for basic science studies than clinical research studies (P < 0.0001). The average journal impact factor of published studies presented in oral format was significantly higher than those presented as posters (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

These results reflect high research productivity with a publication ratio of approximately 60% for abstracts presented at the 2006 Annual Scientific Meeting.     

Abtracts from the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine

Background Provider attitudes about issues pertinent to patient safety may be related to errors and adverse events. We know of no instruments that measure safety-related attitudes in the outpatient setting. Objective To adapt the safety attitudes questionnaire (SAQ) to the outpatient setting and compare attitudes among different types of providers in the outpatient setting. Methods We modified the SAQ to create a 62-item SAQ—ambulatory version (SAQ-A). Patient care staff in a multispecialty, academic practice rated their agreement with the items using a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to determine reliability of scale scores. Differences in SAQ-A scores between providers were assessed using ANOVA. Results Of the 409 staff, 282 (69%) returned surveys. One hundred ninety (46%) surveys were included in the analyses. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.68 to 0.86 for the scales: teamwork climate, safety climate, perceptions of management, job satisfaction, working conditions, and stress recognition. Physicians had the least favorable attitudes about perceptions of management while managers had the most favorable attitudes (mean scores: 50.4 ± 22.5 vs 72.5 ± 19.6, P < 0.05; percent with positive attitudes 18% vs 70%, respectively). Nurses had the most positive stress recognition scores (mean score 66.0 ± 24.0). All providers had similar attitudes toward teamwork climate, safety climate, job satisfaction, and working conditions. Conclusion The SAQ-A is a reliable tool for eliciting provider attitudes about the ambulatory work setting. Attitudes relevant to medical error may differ among provider types and reflect behavior and clinic operations that could be improved.     

Abstracts of Scientific Papers Presented at the Meeting

Abstracts of Scientific Papers Presented at the Meeting