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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

Research publication in pediatric surgery: a cross-sectional study of papers presented at the Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons and the American Pediatric Surgery Association

Introduction

Several studies have examined predictors of publication of research presented in scientific meetings in different disciplines. A tendency toward publishing studies with positive results has been described as “publication bias.” Our objective was to determine the proportion of the studies that were published, time to publication, and factors that could predict publication in pediatric surgery.

Methods

The abstract books of the Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons and the American Pediatric Surgery Association meetings for 2001 to 2002 were reviewed. Data were gathered regarding the methodology and characteristics of each study. Case reports and editorials were excluded. A Medline search was then conducted to determine the publication status. Analysis using univariate and multivariate techniques was undertaken, comparing the difference between published and unpublished studies.

Results

Two hundred seven abstracts were reviewed. Of the 183 abstracts included, 118 (64.5%) were published. Most studies were published 1 year after presentation (93.2%). Presentation in the American Pediatric Surgery Association meeting and research originating from North America and reporting statistically significant results were significantly associated with subsequent publication on univariate analysis. The presence of statistically significant results was the only factor associated with successful publication on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 3.3; confidence interval, 1.5-7.7).

Conclusion

The strong association between successful publication and the presence of statistically significant results point to the strong possibility of publication bias affecting decisions made about publishing research in the pediatric surgery.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.