Subsequent Full Publication Research Articles

Publication des communications orales présentées aux « Journées dermatologiques de Paris »

The fate of oral presentations presented at a dermatological meeting has not been assessed to date. Our aim was to determine the publication rate for oral presentations presented at the "Journées dermatologiques de Paris" (JDP) meeting in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary goals were to identify factors associated with publication and to examine the consistency of reporting of research findings presented in the conference abstract and subsequent full publication. Abstracts presented orally at the JDP 1999-2004 were identified in the book of congress abstracts. Two independent operatives performed a Medline search cross-referencing lead and last authors and keywords. The publication rate was 57.6% with mean time to publication of 20.3months. The median impact factor was 2.8. Factors associated with subsequent publication were study topic (p=0.04 for oncology) and study type (p=0.03 for fundamental research and p=0.005 for randomized controlled trials). The congress abstracts and full-text publication differed primarily in terms of sample size and data given in the "Results" section. More than half of all abstracts presented orally at the JDP congress are subsequently published in journals with a median impact factor comparable to those seen for other scientific congresses for which similar analysis has been conducted. These results confirm the scientific quality of this particular congress, in addition to its vocation of continuous medical training.

What Happens to the Abstracts Presented at the Societè Internationale d’Urologie Meeting?

To estimate the acceptance rate on peer-reviewed journals, describe the time-course of subsequent full publication, and identify those with characteristics associated with publication from the abstracts presented at the Societè Internationale d'Urologie (SIU) meeting. All abstracts accepted for presentation at the annual 2002 and 2004 SIU meetings were identified from the published supplements in the BJU International. The subsequent publication rate for the corresponding studies by scanning Medline was evaluated. Overall, 1877 abstracts were presented, 415 of which (22.1%) were followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals. The mean time to publication was 13 months (range, 1 to 45 months). A total of 60.6% of the published articles were in print within 1 year of presentation "In most of the cases the reports were published in The Journal of Urology (76 reports) and in Urology (49 reports). Abstracts on kidney cancer, urinary diversion, incontinence, and urolithiasis had the highest publication rates (43.4%, 36.6%, 33.3%, and 29.2%, respectively). Studies from North America and from Oceania had the highest publication rate (26.8% and 26.6%, respectively). One fifth of the abstracts presented at the SIU meetings are ultimately published in indexed journals. Delegates attending these meetings should be aware of this issue when taking into account findings from meeting reports for their clinical practice. Factors influencing their publication are the abstract geographical area of origin, the study subject, and the research type. The Journal of Urology and Urology represented target journals for the publication more than other ones.

An observational study of the proceedings of the All India Ophthalmological Conference, 2000 and subsequent publication in indexed journals

To determine the quality of reporting in the proceedings of the All India Ophthalmological Conference (AIOC) 2000, subsequent rate of publication in an indexed journal and differences between the proceedings and the journal version of these papers. Observational study. All papers presented at the AIOC 2000 were retrieved from the proceedings and assessed for completeness of reporting. To determine the subsequent full publication, a Medline search was performed as of January 2007; consistency between the proceedings paper and the final publication was evaluated. Chi square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare publication rates based on geographical location, subspecialty and study design; Student's t -test was used to compare differences based on the number of authors and sample size. Two hundred papers were retrieved; many failed to include study dates, design or statistical methods employed. Thirty-three (16.5%) papers were subsequently published in indexed journals by January 2007. The published version differed from the proceedings paper in 27 (81.8%) instances, mostly relating to changes in author name, number or sequence. The overall quality of reporting of scientific papers in the proceedings of the AIOC 2000 was inadequate and many did not result in publication in an indexed journal. Differences between the published paper in journals and in proceedings were seen in several instances. Ophthalmologists should be cautious about using the information provided in conference proceedings in their ophthalmic practice.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of abstract results is based on the magnitude or direction of study results, publication bias may result. Publication bias, in turn, creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence. To determine the rate at which abstract results are subsequently published in full, and the time between meeting presentation and full publication. To assess the association between study characteristics and full publication. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. Date of most recent search: June 2003. We included all reports that examined the subsequent full publication rate of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form. Follow-up of abstracts had to be at least two years. Two reviewers extracted data. We calculated the weighted mean full publication rate and time to full publication. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk and random effects models. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.'Positive' results defined as any 'significant' result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and 'positive' results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30). Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.28; CI 1.09 to 1.49); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.78; CI 1.50 to 2.12); randomized trial study design (RR = 1.24; CI 1.14 to 1.36); and basic research (RR = 0.79; CI 0.70 to 0.89). Higher quality of abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials was also associated with full publication (RR = 1.30, CI 1.00 to 1.71). Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the World Congress of Endourology: Are They Followed by Publication in Peer-Reviewed Journals?

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). 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. 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. 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.

Case study of the comparison of data from conference abstracts and full-text articles in health technology assessment of rapidly evolving technologies: Does it make a difference?

The aim of this study was to examine (i) the consistency of reporting research findings presented in conference abstracts and presentations and subsequent full publications, (ii) the ability to judge methodological quality of trials from conference abstracts and presentations, and (iii) the effect of inclusion or exclusion of data from these sources on the pooled effect estimates in a meta-analysis. This report is a case study of a selected health technology assessment review (TAR) of a rapidly evolving technology that had identified and included a meta-analysis of trial data from conference abstracts and presentations. The overall quality of reporting in abstracts and presentations was poor, especially in abstracts. There was incomplete or inconsistent reporting of data in the abstract/presentations. Most often inconsistencies were between conference slide presentations and data reported in published full-text articles. Sensitivity analyses indicated that using data only from published papers would not have altered the direction of any of the results when compared with those using published and abstract data. However, the statistical significance of three of ten results would have changed. If conference abstracts and presentations were excluded from the early analysis, the direction of effect and statistical significance would have changed in one result. The overall conclusions of the original analysis would not have been altered. There are inconsistencies in data presented as conference abstracts/presentations and those reported in subsequent published reports. These inconsistencies could impact the final assessment results. Data discrepancies identified across sources included in TARs should be highlighted and their impact assessed and discussed. Sensitivity analyses should be carried out with and without abstract/presentation data included in the analysis. Incomplete reporting in conference abstracts and presentations limits the ability of reviewers to assess confidently the methodological quality of trials.

Publication of Material Presented at Radiologic Meetings: Authors' Country and International Collaboration

To estimate the influence of the authors' country and collaboration on the probability of subsequent full publication of material from oral presentations at the 2000 European Congress of Radiology (ECR). After searching the Medline database for articles published between 2000 and 2003, all articles that originated from presentations at the ECR in 2000 and were published in journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report were evaluated. Relative likelihood of full publication depending on the country in which an abstract originated was compared with that of Austria, which is the host country of the ECR. The chi(2) test was used to compare publication rates according to country of origin and collaboration. The median and interquartile range of the impact factor of publications according to country of origin and collaboration in the abstract were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The percentage of articles published in journals ranked in the top quartile (top 25% of journals according to impact factor) was calculated. Of 1020 presentations, 403 articles (39%) with significant (P < .001) variations according to country of origin were identified. Studies originating from the United States had the highest percentage of full publication (62%; relative likelihood, 1.41), median impact factor (4.5), and percentage of articles in the top quartile (54%). Radiology was the top quartile journal, with the most articles published (60%). Impact factor differed according to country of origin (P < .001). Abstracts submitted with collaboration between (a) European countries and countries outside of Europe (other than the United States) and (b) different European countries had the highest publication rates (83% and 52%, respectively; P = .03). The country of origin of an abstract was useful in predicting the chances of full publication of the abstract, with the United States having the highest publication rate. Authors were more likely to publish an article if it had been prepared with international collaboration.

Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies

Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies

Scientific papers presented at the European Congress of Radiology 2000: publication rates and characteristics during the period 2000–2004

To determine the rate at which abstracts orally presented at the ECR 2000 were published between 2000-2004, and to identify predictive factors of publication and differences between abstracts and subsequently published papers. Specific search profiles were devised to retrieve items from the Medline database. From 1020 abstracts originating from 39 countries, 479 articles (publication rate 47%) were subsequently published in 139 Medline-indexed journals, most frequently in European Radiology (14%). Country of origin statistically (P<0.0001) influences the subsequent publication of the abstract, Germany having the highest number of presentations (n=343) and derived articles (publication rate 54%). Abstracts presented by authors from the USA (n=21) had the highest publication rate (76%). Most papers were published within the first 3 years after the meeting, as original articles and in English-language journals. Both the study sample size and the first author frequently changed. Chest and cardiac studies had the highest publication rates (56%, both). In summary, abstracts presented at the ECR 2000 had a high publication rate in Medline-indexed journals. Country of origin and subspecialty of presentation appeared to influence subsequent full publication. More articles were published in European Radiology than in other journal.

Does presentation format at the Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meeting predict subsequent publication?

The validity of research presented at scientific meetings continues to be a concern. Presentations are chosen on the basis of submitted abstracts, which may not contain sufficient information to assess the validity of the research. The objective of this study was to determine 1) the proportion of abstracts presented at the annual Pediatric Academic Society (PAS) meeting that were ultimately published in peer reviewed journals; 2) whether the presentation format of abstracts at the meeting predicts subsequent full publication; and whether the presentation format was related to 3) the time to full publication or 4) the impact factor of the journal in which research is subsequently published. We assembled a list of all abstracts submitted to the PAS meetings in general pediatrics categories in 1998 and 1999, using both CD-ROM and journal publications. In each year, we chose up to 80 abstracts from each presentation format ("publish only," "poster," "poster symposium," "platform presentation"). We chose either 1) all abstracts in each format or 2) when there were >80 abstracts, a random selection of 80 of them. We assessed each selected abstract for subsequent full publication by searching Medline in March 2003; if published, then we recorded the journal, month, and year of publication. We used logistic and linear regression to determine whether publication, time to publication, and the journal's impact factor were associated with the abstract's presentation format. Overall, 44.6% of abstracts presented at the PAS meeting achieved subsequent full publication within 4 to 5 years. There were significant differences between the rates of subsequent full publication of abstracts submitted but not chosen for presentation at the meeting (22.2%) and those that were chosen for presentation in poster sessions (40.0%), poster symposia (44.1%), and platform presentations (53.8%). There were no meaningful differences between the presentation formats in their mean time to publication and their mean journal impact factor. PAS meeting attendees and the press should be cautious when interpreting the presentation format of an abstract as a predictor of either its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal or the impact factor of the journal in which it will appear.

Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting.

Large clinical trials are the criterion standard for making treatment decisions, and nonpublication of the results of such trials can lead to bias in the literature and contribute to inappropriate medical decisions. To determine the rate of full publication of large randomized trials presented at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), quantify bias against publishing nonsignificant results, and identify factors associated with time to publication. Survey of 510 abstracts from large (sample size, > or =200), phase 3, randomized controlled trials presented at ASCO meetings between 1989 and 1998. Trial results were classified as significant (P< or =.05 for the primary outcome measure) or nonsignificant (P>.05 or not reported), and the type of presentation and sponsorship were identified. Subsequent full publication was identified using a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, completed November 1, 2001; the search was updated in November 2002, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Authors were contacted if the searches did not find evidence of publication. Publication rate at 5 years; time from presentation to full publication. Of 510 randomized trials, 26% were not published in full within 5 years after presentation at the meeting. Eighty-one percent of the studies with significant results had been published by this time compared with 68% of the studies with nonsignificant results (P<.001). Studies with oral or plenary presentation were published sooner than those not presented (P =.002), and studies with pharmaceutical sponsorship were published sooner than studies with cooperative group sponsorship or studies for which sponsorship was not specified (P =.02). These factors remained significant in a multivariable model. The most frequent reason cited by authors for not publishing was lack of time, funds, or other resources. A substantial number of large phase 3 trials presented at an international oncology meeting remain unpublished 5 years after presentation. Bias against publishing nonsignificant results is a problem even for large randomized trials. Nonpublication breaks the contract that investigators make with trial participants, funding agencies, and ethics boards.

More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review.

BackgroundIt has been estimated that about 45% of abstracts that are accepted for presentation at biomedical meetings will subsequently be published in full. The acceptance of abstracts at meetings and their fate after initial rejection are less well understood. We set out to estimate the proportion of abstracts submitted to meetings that are eventually published as full reports, and to explore factors that are associated with meeting acceptance and successful publication.MethodsStudies analysing acceptance of abstracts at biomedical meetings or their subsequent full publication were searched in MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and by hand searching of bibliographies and proceedings. We estimated rates of abstract acceptance and of subsequent full publication, and identified abstract and meeting characteristics associated with acceptance and publication, using logistic regression analysis, survival-type analysis, and meta-analysis.ResultsAnalysed meetings were held between 1957 and 1999. Of 14945 abstracts that were submitted to 43 meetings, 46% were accepted. The rate of full publication was studied with 19123 abstracts that were presented at 234 meetings. Using survival-type analysis, we estimated that 27% were published after two, 41% after four, and 44% after six years. Of 2412 abstracts that were rejected at 24 meetings, 27% were published despite rejection. Factors associated with both abstract acceptance and subsequent publication were basic science and positive study outcome. Large meetings and those held outside the US were more likely to accept abstracts. s were more likely to be published subsequently if presented either orally, at small meetings, or at a US meeting. acceptance itself was strongly associated with full publication.ConclusionsAbout one third of abstracts submitted to biomedical meetings were published as full reports. Acceptance at meetings and publication were associated with specific characteristics of abstracts and meetings.

Fate of abstracts from the Paris 1995 European Society of Anaesthesiologists meeting.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Media Coverage of Scientific Meetings

Although they are preliminary and have undergone only limited peer review, research abstracts at scientific meetings may receive prominent attention in the news media. We sought to describe news coverage of abstracts, characterize the research, and determine subsequent full publication in the medical literature. We searched Lexis-Nexis to identify news stories printed in the 2 months following 5 scientific meetings held in 1998 (12th World AIDS Conference, American Heart Association, Society for Neuroscience, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the Radiological Society of North America). We searched MEDLINE and contacted authors to determine subsequent publication in the medical literature within 3-3.5 years of the meetings. A total of 252 news stories reported on 147 research abstracts (average, 50 per meeting); 16% of the covered abstracts were nonhuman studies, 24% randomized trials, and 59% observational studies. Twenty-one percent of the human studies were small (ie, involving <30 subjects). In the 3 years after the meetings, 50% of the abstracts were published in high-impact journals (based on Institute for Scientific Information ratings), 25% in low-impact journals, and 25% remained unpublished. The publication record of the 39 abstracts receiving front-page newspaper coverage was almost identical to the overall rate. Meeting organizers issued press releases for 43 abstracts; these were somewhat more likely to receive prominent news coverage (35% covered on front page vs 23%, P =.14), but were no more likely to be published. Abstracts at scientific meetings receive substantial attention in the high-profile media. A substantial number of the studies remain unpublished, precluding evaluation in the scientific community.

Acceptance by the aga is the single best indicator of subsequent full publication of research

We studied publication rates and determinants of publication in GI-research. In particular, our concern was the possibility of publication bias, i.e. publication based on the statistical significance of study results. Methods. A random sample (n=l,000, stratified by study type) of all abstracts submitted to the 1992 to 1995 AGA-meetings, was followed up by a computerized literature search (Medline), as well as by postal questionnaires to abstract authors. In addition, abstracts were evaluated for study design features, statistical significance of study results, sample size, and research topic. Abstract evaluation was blinded with respect to acceptance, authors and origin. A quality score was assigned to all abstracts, based on completeness of reporting and measures undertaken to improve internal validity. High impact journals were defined as scientific impact factors (IF) > 5. Differences in publication were tested using log rank tests and Cox regression analysis. Results. Information is available on research presented in 232 abstracts submitted to the 1992-1994 meetings. Within the follow-up period of 3-5 years, 121 research projects (52%) were published in full, 63% of the subgroup of controlled clinical trials (CCT), 57% of basic science studies (BSS). Thirty percent of all abstracts were published within one year of the meeting. The majority of publications (60%) were in GI&Hepatology journals (71% of CCT publications, most frequently Dig Dis Sci, Am J Gastroenterol and Gastroenterology), followed by basic science journals (51% of BSS, most frequently Am J Physiol). Only 2% of all projects presented as abstracts were subsequently published in general medical journals, 19% of all publications were in high IF-journals, 98% were in English. Log ranks tests showed significantly better outcomes, when abstracts had been accepted for AGApresentation (p=.01). Also, outcome was dependent on study type, with CCT and BSS being more likely to be published than epidemiological or other research on humans (p=.03). With respect to topics, research on IBD had the highest publication rates (86%), research on upper GI-problems the lowest (43%), but overall, the research area was not a significant predictor (p=.l). There was no difference in publication rates, or in the percentage of high IF publications between North-American, Australian, and European research. However, although not statistically significant, countries other than these had markedly less overall publications (30% as compared to 54%, p=0.07), and none in high IF-journals. Statistical significance of study results and sample size could not be shown to influence publication rates, nor was the formal quality of the respective AGA abstract predictive. Cox regression analysis retained abstract acceptance as the only significant predictor of subsequent full publication (HR 1,9, CI 1.2-3.0). Preliminary results from the postal survey found lack of time or loss of interest the most frequent reasons for non publication. In 43% of unpublished projects, a manuscript had not or not yet been prepared. Conclusions: Acceptance for abstract presentation was found to be the only significant predictor of full publication of research projects initially submitted as abstracts to DDW meetings. There is, in addition, some evidence, that the country of origin, research type and research topic may be of importance. Bias based on the statistical significance of the study findings (publication bias) does not seem to be an issue. *Fellow of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Research funded by the Calgary Regional Health Authority (CRHA).

Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts

To estimate the rate of full publication of the results of randomized clinical trials initially presented as abstracts at national ophthalmology meetings in 1988 and 1989; and to combine data from this study with data from similar studies to determine the rate at which abstracts are subsequently published in full and the association between selected study characteristics and full publication. Ophthalmology abstracts were identified by review of 1988 and 1989 meeting abstracts for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Similar studies were identified either from reports contained in our files or through a MEDLINE search, which combined the textword "abstract" with "or" statements to the Medical Subject Headings ABSTRACTING & INDEXING, CLINICAL TRIALS, PEER REVIEW, PERIODICALS, MEDICAL SOCIETIES, PUBLISHING, MEDLINE, INFORMATION SERVICES, and REGISTRIES. Ophthalmology abstracts were selected from the meeting proceedings if they reported results from a randomized controlled trial. For the summary study, similar studies were eligible for inclusion if they described followup and subsequent full publication for a cohort of abstracts describing the results of any type of research study. All studies had to have followed up abstracts for at least 24 months to be included. Authors of ophthalmology abstracts were contacted by letter to ascertain whether there was subsequent full publication. Other information, including characteristics of the study design possibly related to publication, was taken from the abstract. For the summary study, rates of full publication were taken directly from reported results, as were associations between study factors (ie, "significant" results and sample size) and full publication. Sixty-six percent (61/93) of ophthalmology abstracts were published in full. Combined results from 11 studies showed that 51% (1198/2391) of all abstracts were subsequently published in full. Full publication was weakly associated with "significant" results and sample size above the median. Approximately one half of all studies initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full-length reports. Most are published in full within 2 years of appearance as abstracts. Full publication may be associated with "significant" results and sample size.