Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Karsten Knobloch¹  Uzung Yoon² 

[1] Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany;Surgery Department, New York Hospital Queens, Flushing, NY, USA

关键词: Peer-review;    Study;    Quality;    Abstract;    Conference;   

Others  :  1136728
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-47

 received in 2010-11-09, accepted in 2012-04-11,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The preliminary results of a study are usually presented as an abstract in conference meetings. The reporting quality of those abstracts and the relationship between their study designs and full paper publication rate is unknown. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials are more likely to be published as full papers than observational studies.

Methods

154 oral abstracts presented at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention 2005 Oslo and the corresponding full paper publication were identified and analysed. The main outcome measures were frequency of publication, time to publication, impact factor, CONSORT (for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, STROBE (for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) score, and minor and major inconsistencies between the abstract and the full paper publication.

Results

Overall, 76 of the 154 (49%) presented abstracts were published as full papers in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.946 ± 0.812. No significant difference existed between the impact factor for randomized controlled trials (2.122 ± 1.015) and observational studies (1.913 ± 0.765, p = 0.469). The full papers for the randomized controlled trials were published after an average (SD) of 17 months (± 13 months); for observational studies, the average (SD) was 12 months (± 14 months) (p = 0.323). A trend was observed in this study that a higher percentage of randomized controlled trial abstracts were published as full papers (71% vs. 47%, p = 0.078) than observational trials. The reporting quality of abstracts, published as full papers, significantly increased compared to conference abstracts both in randomized control studies (CONSORT: 5.7 ± 0.7 to 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.018, CI -2.7 to -0.32) and in observational studies (STROBE: 8.2 ± 1.3 to 8.6 ± 1.4; p = 0.007, CI -0.63 to -0.10). All of the published abstracts had at least one minor inconsistency (title, authors, research center, outcome presentation, conclusion), while 65% had at least major inconsistencies (study objective, hypothesis, study design, primary outcome measures, sample size, statistical analysis, results, SD/CI). Comparing the results of conference and full paper; results changed in 90% vs. 68% (randomized, controlled studies versus observational studies); data were added (full paper reported more result data) in 60% vs. 30%, and deleted (full paper reported fewer result data) in 40% vs. 30%.

Conclusions

No significant differences with respect to type of study (randomized controlled versus observational), impact factor, and time to publication existed for the likelihood that a World Congress of Sports Injury conference abstract could be published as a full paper.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Yoon and Knobloch; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 18:MR000005.
• [2]Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF, CONSORT group: CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 2008, 371:281-283.
• [3]von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:344.
• [4]Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Swiontkowski MF, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH: An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002, 84:615-621.
• [5]Kleweno CP, Bryant WK, Jacir AM, Levine WN, Ahmad CS: Discrepancies and Rates of Publication in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Abstracts. Am J Sports Med 2008, 36:1875-1879.
• [6]Yoon U, Knobloch K: Quality of reporting in sports injury prevention abstracts according to the CONSORT and STROBE criteria-an analysis of the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention in 2005 and 2008. Br J Sports Med 2009, in press.
• [7]Sprague S, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P, Cook DJ, Dirschl D, Schemitsch EH, Guyatt GH: Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A:158-163.
• [8]Eck JC: Publication rates of abstracts presented at Biennial Meetings of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2005, 13:426-429.
• [9]Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L: Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:681-684.
• [10]Hamlet WP, Fletcher A, Meals RA: Publication patterns of papers presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997, 79:1138-1143.
• [11]Wang JC, Yoo S, Delamarter RB: The publication rates of presentations at major Spine Specialty Society meetings (NASS, SRS, ISSLS). Spine 1999, 24:425-427.