Publication bias in gastroenterological research – a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the determinants of publication and whether publication bias occurred in gastroenterological research. METHODS: A random sample of abstracts submitted to DDW, the major GI meeting (1992–1995) was evaluated. The publication status was determined by database searches, complemented by a mailed survey to abstract authors. Determinants of publication were examined by Cox proportional hazards model and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample included abstracts on 326 controlled clinical trials (CCT), 336 other clinical research reports (OCR), and 174 basic science studies (BSS). 392 abstracts (47%) were published as full papers. Acceptance for presentation at the meeting was a strong predictor of subsequent publication for all research types (overall, 54% vs. 34%, OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.1). In the multivariate analysis, multi-center status was found to predict publication (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.6–4.9). There was no significant association between direction of study results and subsequent publication. Studies were less likely to be published in high impact journals if the results were not statistically significant (OR 0.5, 95 CI 95% 0.3–0.6). The author survey identified lack of time or interest as the main reason for failure to publish. CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts which were selected for presentation at the DDW are more likely to be followed by full publications. The statistical significance of the study results was not found to be a predictor of publication but influences the chances for high impact publication

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

BACKGROUND: It 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. METHODS: Studies 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. RESULTS: Analysed 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. Abstracts were more likely to be published subsequently if presented either orally, at small meetings, or at a US meeting. Abstract acceptance itself was strongly associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: About 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

Do we publish what we preach? Analysis of the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress publication rates

BACKGROUND: Scientific congresses have become the most expedient method to communicate novel findings on any research topic. However, an important question is whether this information will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Our aim was to determine the publication rate of the abstracts presented at the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress and analyze factors that may influence this rate. METHODS: A total of 398 abstracts reported in the Abstract Book from the 2008 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress were examined and categorized by oral and poster presentations, topic, and the number of authors listed. A search in PubMed and Google Scholar for subsequent peer-reviewed publications was performed in September 2015. The time to publication after the meeting had been held; the type of journal and its impact factor at the time to publication were recorded for those abstracts that reached peer-reviewed journal publication. RESULTS: The overall publication rate for the 2008 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow oral and poster presentations was 45.20% after 7 years. The mean time to publication was 18.53 months, and the mean impact factor value was 2.32. Oral presentations were significantly better represented in journals than posters (64.40 vs. 35.40%, p < 0.001). Abstracts with a greater number of authors listed had better publication rates (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Less than half of the oral presentations and posters at the 21st European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress were published in peer-reviewed journals. Oral presentations with a higher number of authors had an increased likelihood of being published

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

Many shoulder and elbow abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting are cited in the orthopaedic literature or are used to guide orthopaedic practice, but not all of these abstracts are submitted, survive peer review, or eventually are published. Presuming unpublished works have not been scientifically confirmed, one could question whether it is academically responsible to cite abstracts presented at the AAOS before they are peer-reviewed and published. To partly address this issue we determined the peer-reviewed publication rate for 558 abstracts (233 papers and 325 posters) presented at the shoulder and elbow sessions of the AAOS from 1999 to 2004. In April 2007, we searched the computerized database MEDLINE® and PubMed® for published articles based on these abstracts. We examined the published articles to assess publication rate, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors, and change in conclusions of abstracts. The overall publication rate in peer-reviewed journals was 58% (321 of 558), similar to other orthopaedic meetings and medical disciplines. We believe it is unacceptable to cite shoulder and elbow abstracts submitted to the AAOS because only slightly more than ½ (58%) of them are authenticated scientifically