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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

Analysis of subsequent publication of scientific orally presented abstracts of the French national congress of radiology. Part I: General characteristics

PurposeTo evaluate the publication rate of scientific abstracts orally presented at the annual meeting of the French Society of Radiology (FSR), and to identify factors associated with publication.Material and methodsAbstracts were selected from the books of abstracts of the 2008–2010 annual meetings of the FSR. For each abstract, country of origin, diagnostic/interventional radiology, imaging techniques (plain radiography, angiography, ultrasound [US], computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), human/experimental study, retrospective/prospective design, number of subjects, oncologic study or not were noted. Publications were searched in Medline-indexed journals and factors associated analyzed by multivariate analysis.ResultsSeven hundred and forty-four abstracts lead to 298 publications (publication rate 40%). Most abstracts reported retrospective studies (61%), in humans (94%), diagnostic imaging (85%), from European authors (90%), and oncology (27%). Median number of subject was 39 (19–87). Main imaging techniques were MRI, CT, US (46%, 29%, 21%). Publications were mostly in English (89%), in radiological journals (72%), with a mean 3.5 ± 3.7 impact factor. Publication was associated with a prospective design (OR = 1.80), a submission from Europe (OR = 1.71), angiography (OR = 2.44), and oncology (OR = 1.81).ConclusionThe annual meeting of the FSR is in French, but the rate of publication of presented abstracts is high, mostly in English in reputable journals.     

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.     

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.     

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 rate of Trauma abstracts presented at an International Orthopaedic conference

INTRODUCTION: Oral presentations at major conferences are often used to present new material and generate discussion. However, conference abstracts that ultimately fail to be published are of little use to the wider medical community. The aim of this study was to evaluate the publication rate of trauma papers presented at an international orthopaedic conference, and to assess the factors which predict publication. METHODS: All abstracts presented orally at the trauma sessions of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) Congresses in 1999 (Belgium) and 2001 (Greece) were assessed. A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed to identify articles written by the first, second and last authors of each abstract to identify a matching journal article. Subspecialty, country of origin of abstract, study type, journal of publication and publication year were tabulated. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy eight trauma abstracts were presented orally, and 112 (40.3%) achieved subsequent publication. Abstracts on fractures of the proximal femur were the most common (18.7%) and had one of the highest rates of publication (44.2%). Greece and the UK provided the largest number of abstracts, and randomised trials were the study type with the highest rate of publication (80.0%). Thirty two percent of journal articles appeared within 1 year of the conference and 63% within 2 years. Injury was the journal most likely to publish the articles. CONCLUSION: About 60% of Trauma abstracts presented did not result in a subsequent full-text publication. The citation of conference proceedings should be discouraged, and clinicians should be wary of implementing information gleaned from conference presentations into their clinical practice.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.