Subsequent Full-text Publications Research Articles

An analysis regarding the ultimate outcome of abstracts presented at the European Paediatric Surgeons' Association (EUPSA) Congresses.

The objective of this study is to analyze the conversion rate of abstracts presented at the European Paediatric Surgeons' Association (EUPSA) congress into full-text publications and to conduct a thorough analysis of the attributes and quality of the papers published. Abstract books including the years 2017 to 2022 were reviewed. Searches on PubMed and Google Scholar, utilizing keywords from the titles and the author names, were conducted to trace subsequent full-text publications. A categorical analysis detected variations and trends, with a significance threshold of P < 0.05. Quantitative data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SD), while categorical data were represented as counts (n) and percentages (%). A total of 2,139 abstracts were presented at the EUPSA annual meetings during five consecutive congresses. The average number of presented abstracts was 427.6 ± 20.4 per year from across 63 different countries. European countries contributed the majority (71%). The presentations included both oral (n=817, 38.2%) and poster presentations (n=1322, 61.8%). They predominantly focused on clinical topics (90.6%). Single-center retrospective studies were the most common study design (43.7%). Out of all abstracts presented, 1033 (48.3%) were published within an average time interval of 1.39 ± 1.19 years after presentation. Most journals had an impact factor (IF) between 1 and 5 (74.5%). There was no significant year-to-year variation in publication rates (p=1). Basic science studies were published in journals with significantly higher IF compared to clinical studies (p<0.001). The publication rate of abstracts presented at the EUPSA annual congress stands at 48.3%, aligning with the rates observed in other similar studies. This suggests that abstracts submitted to the EUPSA congresses were evaluated and scored rigorously, adhering to international selection criteria. Furthermore, the majority of these abstracts were published in journals with moderate to high impact factors, providing quantitative evidence of the scientific quality of research within the field of pediatric surgery.

Full-text publications of presentations at neuroanesthesia meetings of India: A 5-year audit and analysis.

Backgroud and Aims:Conference presentations provide an opportunity to rapidly share findings of new research despite limitations of details and reach. Earlier studies have examined publication rates of conference presentations in anesthesia. However, conversion rate of neuroanesthesia meeting presentations to publications is unknown. We assessed the publication rate of neuroanesthesia conference presentations from India over a 5-year period and identified factors contributing to subsequent publications.Material and Methods:Conference abstracts of the Indian Society of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care (ISNACC) from 2014 to 2018 were studied with regard to conversion to full-length publications. Details of presentations were obtained from abstracts published in the journal of ISNACC and details of publications were collected by searching Google and PubMed using title and author details.Results:Only 17.5% (40/229) of the abstracts presented at ISNACC conferences over a 5-year period resulted in subsequent full-text publications in peer-reviewed journals. Prospective cohort studies (OR [95% CI] 2.84 [1.05–8.56], P = 0.048), randomized trials (OR [95% CI] 2.69 [1.04 to 7.9], P = 0.053), and abstracts from public institutions (OR [95% CI] 3.44 [1.4 to 10.42], P = 0.014) were significantly associated with publications after conference presentations.Conclusion:The conversion rate of conference presentations of neuroanesthesia society of India into journal publications is significantly low. There is need for neuroanesthesia community of India to work together to improve the translation of presentations into publications.

Factors to improve academic publishing success of physicians engaged in scientific research

IntroductionScientific evidence in medicine is based on data generated from research. Recently, the number of scientifically active physicians has decreased, which has led to the development of the Clinician Scientist Programs. To better structure and focus the research of young physicians, we aimed to investigate the impact of collaborations and other factors on the quality and output of scientific publications. MethodsThe abstracts of three annual congresses of the German Society of Urology were systematically analysed regarding content, collaborations, and study design. Full-text publications and journals were identified through a MEDLINE® search. Impact factors (IFs) were identified using Journal Citation Reports™. To identify factors which predict publication and IFs, χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the best model for publication success for an abstract as well as the achievement of a high IF. Results1,074 abstracts were reviewed. The publication rate of subsequent peer-reviewed full-text publications was 52.5%. Collaborations with at least one institution (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48–2.76, p <0.0001), statistical analysis (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.41–2.60, p <0.0001), study design (prospective vs. retrospective: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06–1.93, p=0.021), and national collaborations (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.04–1.98, p=0.029) increased the likelihood of publication in a peer-reviewed journal in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Experimental design (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.32–5.84, p=0.007), international collaborations (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.23-4.15, p=0.009), oncologic topics (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.23–3.07, p=0.005), prostate disease (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.08–2.84, p=0.023), and statistical analysis (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.06–2.64, p=0.026) were associated with a higher IF. ConclusionAbstracts resulting from collaborative research projects had a higher likelihood of subsequent full-text publication and a higher IF. More full-text publications were reported when abstracts included a statistical analysis. Hence, intensive networking (e. g. at congresses and workshops) of researching physicians as well as statistical/biometrical classes could be key factors to improve academic success.

Inconsistency and low transparency were found between core outcome set protocol and full text publication: a comparative study

ObjectivesThe objective of the study was to assess inconsistencies between individual protocols and associated full-text publications in the development of core outcome sets (COSs). Study Design and SettingProtocols and subsequent full-text publications were retrieved by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database from inception to October 1, 2019. We summarized changes in the general and methodological characteristics by comparing the protocols with the full-text publications and reported change as information frequency and proportion. ResultsA total of 24 protocols and 32 corresponding full-text publications that encompassed 14 study topics were identified from databases. In the identified initial list of outcomes, five COSs (20.8%) changed the included study type, none of which explained the reasons for these changes. In addition, eight COSs showed inconsistencies between the protocols and full-text publications in the searched databases, of which, only two studies explained the reasons for these changes. Compared with the protocols, three COSs changed the number of Delphi rounds, eight COSs changed the participants (stakeholder groups), and three COSs changed the consensus definition of the Delphi survey. Only two COSs explained the reason for changing the number of Delphi rounds, and none of the studies explained why the participants changed. For the face-to-face consensus meeting, we found that nine COSs changed the participants and none explained the reasons for these changes. ConclusionOur study found many inconsistencies between protocols and the full-text publications concerning COS development. These inconsistencies related to the included study types, databases searched, Delphi surveys, and face-to-face consensus meetings. As it is necessary to publish protocols before developing COSs, transparency regarding any changes to the methods is needed.

Full-text publication rate of studies reported as 2013 SoFCOT meeting abstracts

BackgroundPublication of scientific work, although mandatory to ensure dissemination of novel research findings and obtain further funding, can require considerably more time and effort compared to conference presentations. Several national or scientific societies have determined the publication rate of studies reported at their meetings. The French Society for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société française de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, SoFCOT) has not yet measured this parameter. The objective of this study was to (i) evaluate the full-text publication rate of studies accepted in abstract form for podium presentations or posters at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting and (ii) identify characteristics of abstracts associated with subsequent full-text publication. HypothesisThe full-text publication rate of abstracts accepted for the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was equal to or greater than the mean reported by national societies, i.e., 44.5%. Material and methodsPublication rates of the 503 studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting were studied. The time horizon was thus at least 5years. The topic was orthopaedic surgery for 315 (62.6%) abstracts, trauma surgery for 153 (30.4%) abstracts, and fractures in elderly patients – the cross-field theme for that year – for 35 (7.0%) abstracts. Reporting was as a podium presentation for 275 (54.7%) abstracts, an e-poster for 205 (40.8%) abstracts, an instructional course lecture for 20 (4.0%) abstracts, a symposium for 2 (0.4%) abstracts, and a round table for 1 (0.2%) abstract. ResultsThe full-text publication rate was 35.6% overall and 47.1% (139 publications) for podium presentations. Mean time from podium or poster presentation at the SoFCOT meeting to full-text publication was 1.2±1.5years (range: −2.5 to 6.1years). The full-text publications had 0.8±2.3 (range: −6 to 11) more authors compared to the abstract. They appeared in 54 journals with a mean impact factor of 1.9±1.3 (range: 0.25 to 13.77; median: 1.41; interquartile range: 1.26 to 2.47). Subgroup comparisons showed that full-text publication was more common for prospective than retrospective studies (50.0% versus 30.5%, p<0.0001) and for studies showing a significant difference (48.6% versus 33.0%, p<0.0001). Systematic reviews were more often published in full than were anecdotal case-reports. The full-text publication rate was also higher for studies reported as podium presentations than as e-posters (47.1% versus 17.6%, p<0.0001). Finally, studies of orthopaedic surgery were more often published in full than were studies of trauma surgery (39.7% versus 28.2%, p=0.033). DiscussionThe 5-year full-text publication rate of studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was consistent with previously reported data. The impact factors of the journals in which the studies were published are evidence of the high quality of the information shared at SoFCOT meetings. Level of evidenceIV, systematic retrospective analysis.

Do we publish what we preach? Analysis of Spanish Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Society publication rates

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to analyse the publication rate of studies presented as podium presentations in the Spanish Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (SECHC) congresses. MethodsOne hundred and twenty-two abstracts presented at the SECHC congresses held in 2007, 2009 and 2011 were included for the purpose of the study. The oral communications were categorised by study type, sample included and follow-up. In June 2017, possible publications of these studies were searched in PubMed. Type of study, delay in publication, journal and impact factor obtained were recorded. The concordance between the information presented at the congress and their subsequent full-text publications was analysed. ResultsThe publication rate was 17.21% (21 of the 122 abstracts studied) after 6 years, with a mean time spent for publications of 36.71 months, and a mean impact factor of 1.51. There were no differences between results initially presented at the congresses and those subsequently published (p>0.05). DiscussionThe majority of papers presented at SECHC congresses do not end up with a publication. The papers that are published do not usually contain significant differences compared to the content delivered at the congress.

¿Publicamos lo que predicamos? Tasa de publicación de los congresos de la Sociedad Española de Cirugía de Hombro y Codo

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to analyse the publication rate of studies presented as podium presentations in the Spanish Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (SECHC) congresses. MethodsOne hundred and twenty-two abstracts presented at the SECHC congresses held in 2007, 2009 and 2011 were included for the purpose of the study. The oral communications were categorized by study type, sample included and follow-up. In June 2017, possible publications of these studies were searched in PubMed. Type of study, delay in publication, journal and impact factor obtained were recorded. The concordance between the information presented at the congress and their subsequent full-text publications was analysed. ResultsThe publication rate was 17.21% (21 of the 122 abstracts studied) after 6 years, with a mean time spent for publications of 36.71 months, and a mean impact factor of 1.51. There were no differences between results initially presented at the congresses and those subsequently published (P>0.05). DiscussionThe majority of papers presented at SECHC congresses do not end up with a publication. The papers that are published do not usually contain significant differences compared to the content delivered at the congress.

Factors Affecting Subsequent Full-text Publication of Papers Presented at the Annual Conference of the Indian Academy of Pediatrics.

To study the factors associated with the subsequent (over next 9 years) full-text publication of papers presented at the 44th National Conference of Indian Academy of Pediatrics (PEDICON), 2007. All papers presented at PEDICON 2007 were searched for subsequent full-text publication over the next 9 years in English-language journals by an internet-based search. The published papers were compared with the conference-abstracts. 74 (16%) of the 450 abstracts presented were subsequently published; 61 (82.4%) in Medline-indexed journals. Majority (50, 67.6%) of the papers was published within the first 36 mo in journals with mean (SD) impact factor of 2.62 (1.63). The factors significantly associated with subsequent publication were papers presented as award papers (P<0.001), those reporting on Interventional trials (P<0.001), and those from medical colleges (P<0.05). On comparison of the conference abstracts with the subsequently published full-papers, 55% had a change in title; authors were changed in 65%, and participants' numbers were dissimilar in 8.6%. There is a need to identify the factors responsible for this low rate of subsequent publication, and interventions to improve it both at institutional and researchers' level.

Five-year publication rate of clinical presentations at the open and closed American shoulder and elbow surgeons annual meeting from 2005-2010.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the five-year publication rate of papers presented at both the open and closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons’ (ASES) annual meetings from 2005 to 2010.MethodsOnline abstracts of the presentations at the open and closed ASES annual meetings were independently screened for clinical studies and graded for quality using level of evidence. The databases PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid (MEDLINE), and EMBASE were comprehensively searched for full-text publications corresponding to these presentations and any paper published within five years of the presentation date was counted.ResultsOverall, 131/266 papers corresponding to the meeting presentations were identified for a five-year publication rate of 49.2 %. Sixty two (48 %) of the papers were published in The Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 23 (18 %) were published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, and 20 (16 %) were published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. The mean patient sample size included in presentations with a subsequent full-text publication was higher (154; standard error =27) than the presentations not published (93; standard error = 13) (p = 0.039). There was no correlation (p = 0.248) between the publication rate and the level of evidence of the presentations.ConclusionsThe publication rate of presentations at ASES meetings from 2005 to 2010 is similar to that reported from other orthopaedic meetings. Studies with large sample sizes should continue to be encouraged, and high quality presentations must consistently be followed up with full-text manuscript preparation in order to maximize the future clinical impact.

Publication rate of studies presented at veterinary anaesthesia specialty meetings during the years 2003–2008

ObjectiveTo assess publication rates, factors predicting publication, and discrepancies between conference abstracts and subsequent full-text publications of abstracts from the veterinary meetings of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists and the Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists from 2003 to 2008. Study designRetrospective cohort study. MethodsA total of 607 abstracts were identified and a database search (Scopus, PubMed, CAB) was conducted to identify matching publications. Authors of nonmatching abstracts were contacted to participate in a confidential online survey. Risk ratios were used to assess factors predicting publication and these were tested for significance (p < 0.05) using Fisher's exact test. ResultsThe overall publication rate was 63.3% and the mean (± SD) time to publication was 25 ± 19 months. Factors significantly associated with subsequent full publication (i.e. publication of a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal) were continent of origin (North America), study design (experimental studies), specialty (analgesia) and the presence of a source of funding. The principal reasons why studies remained unpublished were lack of time and responsibility lying with co-authors. Minor changes compared with the original abstract were found in 71.6% of all publications. Major changes were noted in 34.6% and the outcome of the study changed in 7.6%. Conclusions and clinical relevanceThese data suggest that some of the abstracts reported preliminary findings. Therefore, caution is warranted when quoting abstracts as references in scientific publications. To date, major veterinary journals have not issued recommendations in their author guidelines addressing the use of abstracts as a reference. The authors propose the inclusion of such a statement in author guidelines.

Discrepancies Between Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Full Text Publications in Hand Surgery

Research abstracts presented during the proceedings of an annual meeting are often cited and can influence clinical practice. Prior studies show that roughly 50% of abstracts at American Society for Surgery of the Hand meetings are eventually published. Yet, it is unknown how often the results or conclusions of published studies differ from the podium presentation. The objective of this study was to quantify the differences between abstracts presented during the annual meeting of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand and the resulting manuscripts. We retrospectively reviewed every abstract delivered as a podium presentation at the American Society for Surgery of the Hand annual meeting from 2000 to 2010. We searched the PubMed database for matching publications and compared authorship, country of origin, hypothesis, study design and methodology, changes in study groups or populations, results, and conclusions. Of 798 total abstracts, we analyzed 719 involving the hand, wrist, and brachial plexus. Fifty-six different journals published 393 of the abstracts, for a 49% publication rate. Mean time to publication was 18 months with a median of 14 and maximum of 122 months. There were inconsistencies between the results and/or conclusions in 14% of full-length articles compared with the abstract presented at the meeting. A total of 9% of articles were published with fewer subjects. Authorships changes were noted in 54% of publications. Abstracts represent preliminary investigations and major and minor changes occur before subsequent publication. Caution should be exercised in referencing abstracts or altering clinical practice based on their content. Economic/decision analysis IV.

Fate of abstracts presented at a National Turkish Orthopedics and Traumatology Congress: publication rates and consistency of abstracts compared with their subsequent full-text publications

The aim of this study was to evaluate the publication rates of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts at a Turkish National Orthopaedics and Traumatology Congress, determine the time lag from the congress date to publication of full-text articles and assess the consistency between abstracts and the subsequent publications. All abstracts from the scientific program of the 20th Turkish National Orthopaedics and Traumatology Congress (2007) were identified and computerized PubMed searches were conducted to determine whether an abstract had been followed by publication of a full-text article and key features were compared to evaluate their consistency. The time lag to publication and the impact factors of the journals where the articles were published were noted. Of the 770 abstracts (264 oral, 506 poster presentations), 227 (29.5%) were followed by a full-text and 116 (44%) of the 264 oral and 111 (22%) of the 506 poster presentations were published. The mean time to publication was 14.9±16.075 (range: 33 to 55) months. Thirty-three (14.5%) were published prior to the presentation at the congress. The likelihood of publication decreased after the third year (26 of 227, 11.5%). A total of 182 (80.2%) articles showed inconsistencies with the abstract; 74 (32.6%) minor, 14 (6.2%) major, and 94 (41.4%) minor and major inconsistencies. The mean impact factor of the journals was 1.152±0.858. The vast majority of abstracts presented at this congress were not followed by publication of a full-text article. Additionally, frequent inconsistencies between the final published article and the original abstract indicated the inadequacy of quality of reporting in abstracts.

Reporting Quality and Information Consistency of Randomized, Controlled Trials Presented as Abstracts at the American Urological Association Annual Meetings

We assessed the quality of randomized, controlled trial reporting in abstracts from the annual meetings of the American Urological Association and determined whether the information provided is consistent with subsequent full text publications. All randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form at the 2002 and 2003 American Urological Association annual meetings were identified for review. A systematic PubMed search based on authorship and key words from the study title was done to identify all subsequent full text publications. A standardized evaluation form was developed based on the published literature, pilot tested in a separate sample and applied by 2 independent reviewers. A total of 126 randomized, controlled trials were identified for review, including 56 in 2002 and 70 in 2003. Approximately a third of the trials (43 or 34.1%) identified the study design as a randomized, controlled trial in the abstract title. The method of randomization, allocation concealment and blinding was reported in 0% (0), 0% (0) and 40.5% (51) of studies, respectively. Mean/median followup was provided in 27.0% of studies (34). Of 126 randomized, controlled trials presented in abstract form 62.7% (79) were subsequently published as full text articles. Study sample size and the number of randomized subjects differed in 24.1% and 28.9% of abstracts, respectively. From the small proportion of randomized, controlled trials (23 or 29.1%) that identified a single primary end point results differed in 9 of 23 (39.1%). Most abstracts fail to provide the necessary information to assess methodological quality. Organizers of urological meetings should consider implementing a more structured abstract format that requires authors to provide the necessary study details, thereby allowing urologists to critically appraise study validity.

Consistency of Phase III Clinical Trial Abstracts Presented at an Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Compared With Their Subsequent Full-Text Publications

This study aimed to determine the consistency of phase III clinical trial abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings compared with their subsequent full-text publications. We identified abstracts describing phase III clinical trials of chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, immunotherapy, and hormone therapy presented at the 36th ASCO Annual Meeting in May 2000. We searched MEDLINE and PubMed for all corresponding publications. Data were extracted from the abstracts and publications that met our inclusion criteria. A total of 192 abstracts were identified. Seventy-four abstracts met our inclusion criteria. Six years after the 2000 ASCO Meeting, 74% of abstracts had corresponding publications. The primary end point was stated in 34% of abstracts and 100% of published papers. The primary end point result differed by more than 5% between the abstract and publication in 42% of comparisons. The statistical significance of the primary end point and study conclusions were consistent between abstracts and subsequent publications in 89% and 91% of the comparisons, respectively. Abstracts selected as plenary or oral presentations were significantly more likely to be published. No factors predicted consistency for primary end point significance and overall conclusion between ASCO abstracts and their journal publications. When carefully selected, ASCO Annual Meeting abstracts of phase III trials consistently reflect final published results, but some differences were observed that warrant caution in using abstract results to shape treatment decisions before full publication.

Scientific Presentations at Radiologic Meetings, Subsequent Full-Text Publications, and Authors' Country of Origin

Scientific Presentations at Radiologic Meetings, Subsequent Full-Text Publications, and Authors' Country of Origin

Quality and consistency of phase III clinical trial abstracts presented at an Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology compared with their subsequent full-text publications

6537 Background: Practice guidelines and evidence summaries in oncology are developed by experts to assist providers in making appropriate decisions regarding management. These documents result from a systematic review of literature from medical journals and meeting proceedings. Because there is often less rigorous peer reviewing of abstracts published in these proceedings compared to journal publications, the quality of evidence provided by these abstracts is uncertain. Methods: We identified abstracts describing phase III clinical trials of chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, immune therapy and hormone therapy presented at the 36th ASCO Annual Meeting in May 2000. We searched Medline and Pubmed for all corresponding publications. Data was extracted from the abstracts and publications meeting our inclusion criteria. Results: A total of 192 abstracts were identified. Seventy-four abstracts met our inclusion criteria. Six years after the 2000 ASCO Annual Meeting, 74% of these abstracts had corresponding publications. 39% of the abstracts explicitly indicated that they were reporting interim results. The primary endpoint was stated in 34% of the abstracts and 100% of the published papers. The primary outcome result differed by greater than five percent between the abstract and publication in 25% of the abstracts. The statistical significance of the primary outcome changed in 7% of the abstracts with publications. The final conclusion was consistent between the abstract and publication for 92% of the abstracts with reported conclusions. Conclusions: ASCO annual meeting abstracts of phase III trials appear to consistently reflect final published results and can likely be used in practice guidelines. However, occasional discrepancies underline the need for caution in completely adopting these results prior to full publication. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Publication rate of Trauma abstracts presented at an International Orthopaedic conference

Oral presentations at major conferences are often used to present new material and generate discussion. However, conference abstracts that ultimately fail to be published are of little use to the wider medical community. The aim of this study was to evaluate the publication rate of trauma papers presented at an international orthopaedic conference, and to assess the factors which predict publication. All abstracts presented orally at the trauma sessions of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) Congresses in 1999 (Belgium) and 2001 (Greece) were assessed. A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed to identify articles written by the first, second and last authors of each abstract to identify a matching journal article. Subspecialty, country of origin of abstract, study type, journal of publication and publication year were tabulated. Two hundred and seventy eight trauma abstracts were presented orally, and 112 (40.3%) achieved subsequent publication. Abstracts on fractures of the proximal femur were the most common (18.7%) and had one of the highest rates of publication (44.2%). Greece and the UK provided the largest number of abstracts, and randomised trials were the study type with the highest rate of publication (80.0%). Thirty two percent of journal articles appeared within 1 year of the conference and 63% within 2 years. Injury was the journal most likely to publish the articles. About 60% of Trauma abstracts presented did not result in a subsequent full-text publication. The citation of conference proceedings should be discouraged, and clinicians should be wary of implementing information gleaned from conference presentations into their clinical practice.

The Consistency Between Scientific Papers Presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and their Subsequent Full-Text Publication

To determine the consistency of conclusions/statements made in podium presentations at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) with those in subsequent full-text publications. Also, to evaluate the nature and consistency of study design, methods, sample sizes, results and assign a corresponding level of evidence. Abstracts of the scientific programs of the OTA from 1994 to 1997 (N = 254) were queried by using the PubMed database to identify those studies resulting in a peer-reviewed, full-text publication. Of the 169 articles retrieved, 137 studies were the basis of our study after the exclusion criteria were applied: non-English language, basic science studies, anatomic dissection studies, and articles published in non-peer-reviewed journals. Information was abstracted onto a data form: first from the abstract published in the final meeting program, and then from the published journal article. Information was recorded regarding study issues, including the study design, primary objective, sample size, and statistical methods. We provided descriptive statistics about the frequency of consistent results between abstracts and full-text publications. The results were recorded as percentages and a 95% confidence interval was applied to each value. Study results were recorded for the abstract and full-text publication comparing results and the overall conclusion. A level of scientific-based evidence was assigned to each full-text publication. The final conclusion of the study remained the same 93.4% of the time. The method of study was an observational case series 52% of the time and a statement regarding the rate of patient follow-up was reported 42% of the time. Of the studies published, 18.2% consisted of a sample size smaller than the previously presented abstract. When the published papers had their level of evidence graded, 11% were level I, 16% level II, 17% level III, and 56% level IV. Authors conclusions were consistent with those in full-text publications. Most studies were observational, less than half reported on the rate of patient follow-up. Many abstracts followed by publication had a smaller sample size in the published paper. Half of all studies were graded level IV evidence.

Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings.

Oral presentations at national and international meetings offer an excellent forum for the dissemination of current research findings. However, publication rates of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts at international meetings have ranged from 11% to 78%, which suggests that at least 32% of the abstracts presented are never published as complete articles in peer-reviewed journals. In an effort to identify the reasons that surgeons had not had a paper published following presentation of their work at an international orthopaedic meeting, we conducted a survey of a cross section of authors of orthopaedic papers presented at a national meeting. We retrieved all abstracts from the 1996 scientific program of the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. A computerized Medline and PubMed search established whether the abstract had been subsequently published as a full-text article. The authors of the abstracts that had not been subsequently published were surveyed to identify the reasons for the failure to publish. A total of 465 abstracts were presented at the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 1996. We surveyed the authors of 306 abstracts for which we were unable to locate a subsequent full-text publication on Medline. One hundred and ninety-nine investigators (65%) responded to the questionnaire. At the time of the survey, seventy-two manuscripts had been published, thirty-two had been submitted and rejected, fourteen were under consideration by journals, seven had been accepted for publication or were in press, and three were not recalled by the investigator. In addition, seventy-one abstracts (35.7%) of the 199 had not been submitted for publication. The authors of those abstracts were asked to indicate one or more reasons why they had not submitted a manuscript for publication. Thirty-three investigators (46.5%) indicated that they lacked sufficient time for research activities, twenty-two (31.0%) reported that the study presented at the meeting in 1996 was still in progress, fourteen (19.7%) believed that the responsibility for writing the manuscript belonged to someone else, and twelve (16.9%) reported that difficulties with co-authors who would not participate had impeded the completion of the manuscript. Nine investigators (12.7%) responded that the pursuit of publication was a low priority. In a survey of investigators who had not had a full-text article published after presenting the abstract at a national meeting, we found that the failure to publish was due to one of three main reasons: (1) they did not have enough time to prepare a manuscript for publication (the reason most frequently given); (2) almost one-third of the studies that had not been submitted for publication were ongoing; and (3) relationships with co-authors sometimes presented a barrier to final publication. Thorough preparation before the study and the establishment of stricter guidelines to limit the presentation of preliminary data at national and international meetings may improve publication rates.