Abstract
Background Scientific meetings provide a forum to disseminate new research and advance patient care. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS), and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meetings are examples of such gatherings in the field of musculoskeletal oncology. After a review of select MSTS abstracts from 1991 to 1999 revealed a 41% publication rate in scientific journals, previous authors cautioned meeting attendees that the majority of abstracts may not survive rigorous peer review and may not be scientifically valid. Since two decades have passed, this study reexamined publication rates and characteristics in a contemporary and expanded cohort of oncology abstracts presented at the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings. Methods 1408 podium and poster abstracts from the AAOS (oncology-focused from 2013 to 2015), CTOS (2012 to 2014), and MSTS (2012 to 2014) annual meetings were reviewed to allow for a four-year publication window. Searches were performed with PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify full-text publications using abstract keywords. Characteristics of each abstract and resulting publication were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests for time-independent comparisons, and the log-rank test after reverse Kaplan-Meier analysis for time-dependent comparisons. Results publication rates overall were higher for podium presentations (67%, 280 of 415) compared to poster presentations (53%, 530 of 993; p < 0.001). When both abstract types were combined, differences between meetings did not meet statistical significance (AAOS: 65%, 106 of 162; CTOS: 57%, 521 of 909; MSTS: 54%, 183 of 337, p=0.06). s from AAOS meetings were more often published prior to the first day of the meeting (AAOS: 24%, 25 of 106; CTOS: 10%, 52 of 521; MSTS: 14%, 25 of 183; p < 0.01). After excluding previously published abstracts, AAOS abstracts had the shortest time to publication (median: 10.8 months, interquartile range (IQR): 4.4 to 18.8 months), compared to those from CTOS (16.0 months, 8.4 to 25.9 months, p < 0.01) and MSTS (15 months, 7.9 to 25.0 months, p < 0.01) meetings. CTOS abstracts were published in higher impact journals (median: 3.7, IQR: 2.9 to 5.9), compared to those from AAOS (2.9, 1.9 to 3.2, p < 0.01) and MSTS (3.1, 2.3 to 3.1, p < 0.01) meetings. Finally, 7.7% (62 of 810) of published abstracts were presented at more than one meeting. Conclusions Publication rates in this study were higher than previous reports in musculoskeletal oncology and comparable or better than recent reports for other orthopedic meetings. Comparisons across the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings highlight notable differences but suggest similarity overall in the quality of evidence presented with little overlap between meetings. Taken together, this study points to progress in the review processes used by the program committees, reaffirms the importance of critical appraisal when considering abstract findings, and supports the continued organization of multiple scientific meetings in musculoskeletal oncology.
Highlights
Scientific meetings provide an opportunity for scientists and clinicians to disseminate new research prior to publication in an environment that fosters innovation, collaboration, and debate. ese forums are longstanding traditions and play an important role in advancing scientific discovery and patient care
Publication rates increased overall from year one after presentation (AAOS: 43%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 35% to 52%; Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS): 26%, 21% to 30%, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS): 28%, 21% to 35%) to year two (AAOS: 57%, 95% CI 50% to 64%; CTOS: 43%, 39% to 46%, MSTS: 42%, 36% to 48%) to year three (AAOS: 64%, 95% CI 57% to 69%; CTOS: 52%, 49% to 55%, MSTS: 50%, 45% to 56%) in a time- and meetingdependent manor (p < 0.01) (Figure 1(a))
There was no statistically significant difference in the podium and overall publication rates between meetings or evidence of significant overlap in the information presented. These findings suggest a continued role for multiple scientific meetings in musculoskeletal oncology
Summary
Scientific meetings provide an opportunity for scientists and clinicians to disseminate new research prior to publication in an environment that fosters innovation, collaboration, and debate. ese forums are longstanding traditions and play an important role in advancing scientific discovery and patient care. Is study, asked the following: (1) what are the publication rates for oncology abstracts presented at the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings? After a review of select MSTS abstracts from 1991 to 1999 revealed a 41% publication rate in scientific journals, previous authors cautioned meeting attendees that the majority of abstracts may not survive rigorous peer review and may not be scientifically valid. Since two decades have passed, this study reexamined publication rates and characteristics in a contemporary and expanded cohort of oncology abstracts presented at the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings. Abstract publication rates overall were higher for podium presentations (67%, 280 of 415) compared to poster presentations (53%, 530 of 993; p < 0.001) When both abstract types were combined, differences between meetings did not meet statistical significance (AAOS: 65%, 106 of 162; CTOS: 57%, 521 of 909; MSTS: 54%, 183 of 337, p 0.06). This study points to progress in the review processes used by the program committees, reaffirms the importance of critical appraisal when considering abstract findings, and supports the continued organization of multiple scientific meetings in musculoskeletal oncology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
