Oral Presentations Have a Significantly Higher Publication Rate, But Not Impact Factors, Than Poster Presentations at the International Society for Study of Lumbar Spine meeting: Review of 1126 Abstracts From 2010 to 2012 Meetings.

Abstract

A retrospective study. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate and impact factors (IFs) among all abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2012 meetings of the International Society for the Study of Lumbar Spine (ISSLS). The publication rate of abstracts presented at overseas meetings was reported to be around 50%. However, the publication rate and IFs of oral and poster presentations made at ISSLS meetings were unclear. Moreover, whether the publication rates and IFs differed for papers associated with oral or poster presentations at ISSLS meetings was unknown. We investigated all 1126 abstracts (oral, special posters, general posters) presented at ISSLS meetings held between 2010 and 2012. PubMed was searched to identify publications and IFs were determined using journal citation reports. We also compared the publication rates and IFs between oral and poster presentations. The overall publication rate was 50.1% for three ISSLS meetings (564 publications/1126 abstracts). The overall publication rate for oral presentations, special posters, and general posters given in the 2010 to 2012 meetings was 62.0%, 48.3, and 46.6%, respectively. Overall, papers related to oral presentations had significantly higher publication rates than those of special and general posters (P = 0.0002). The average IFs of publications associated with abstracts presented at three ISSLS meetings was 2.802 for oral presentations, 2.593 for special posters, and 2.589 for general posters. There were no significant differences in average IFs between oral and poster presentations (P > 0.05). The publication rate for abstracts presented at ISSLS meetings was high and similar to publication rates for abstracts presented at other meetings concerning orthopedic and spine research. However, there was no significant difference in IFs between oral and poster presentations, suggesting that abstract evaluations cannot predict IFs of the eventual publication. 4.