Publication Fate of Abstracts Presented at Four British Surgical Meetings: An 11-Year Follow-Up

Abstract

BackgroundThe gold standard for research is publication within a peer-reviewed journal. There is a discrepancy between the number of abstracts presented at scientific meetings and the number published as full articles. We identified publication rates for the 2012 meetings of four British surgical societies. These were the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (ASGBI), the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Transplantation Society (BTS), and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI). We also compared publication rates with these societies' 2001 meetings and identified univariate factors associated with publication. Materials and methodsPubMed was searched to identify publications stemming from meeting abstracts. We extracted abstract characteristics to identify factors associated with publication and also characteristics of subsequent publications to enable comparison. ResultsPublication rates were 24.1% (ASGBI), 24.6% (BTS), 21.7% (ACPGBI), and 39.4% (Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland). Rates for ASGBI, BTS, and ACPGBI meetings were significantly lower compared to 2001 meetings (P = 0.001-0.026). Mean time to publication was 12.1-22.0 mo. Mean 5-y impact factor differed significantly between meetings (P = 0.001), with the BTS meeting having the highest mean 5-y impact factor (4.658). Factors associated with publication included being an oral presentation (ASGBI P = 0.001), multi-institution study (ASGBI P = 0.003), or randomized-controlled trial (BTS P = 0.049). ConclusionsReduced publication rates may represent increased acceptance of low-quality abstracts at meetings or a more competitive journal submission process. Further data are required to strengthen conclusions. Nonetheless, authors and meeting organizers should push for higher quality abstracts to promote future peer-reviewed journal publication.