Analysis of full-text publication and publishing predictors of abstracts presented at an Italian public health meeting (2005–2007)

BMC Research Notes

R. Siliquini²  F. Bert¹  W. Toigo³  M. Giacometti¹  S. Castaldi³ 

[1] Department of Public Health, Post Graduated School in Public Health, University of Turin, Via Santena 5/bis, Turin, 10126, Italy;Department of Public Health, University of Turin, Turin, Italy;Post Graduated School in Public Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

关键词: Conferences and congresses;    Publications;    Scientific Societies;   

Others  :  1229951
DOI  :  10.1186/s13104-015-1463-7

 received in 2013-09-23, accepted in 2015-09-21,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

In Public Health, a thorough review of abstract quality evaluations and the publication history of studies presented at scientific meetings has never been conducted. To analyse the long-term outcome of quality abstracts submitted to conferences of Italian Society of Hygiene and Public Health (SItI) from 2005 to 2007, we conducted a second analysis of previously published material aiming to estimate full-text publication rate of high quality abstract presented at Italian public health meetings, and to identify predictors of full-text publication.

Methods

The search was undertaken through scientific databases and search engines and through the web sites of the major Italian journals of Public Health. For each publication confirmed as a full text paper, the journal name, impact factor, year of publication, gender of the first author, type of study design, characteristics of the results and sample size were collected.

Results

The overall publication rate of the abstracts presented is 23.5 %; most of the papers were published in Public Health journals (average impact factor: 3.007). Non universitary affiliation had resulted in a lower probability of publication, while some of the Conference topics had predisposed the studies to an increased likelihood of publication as well as poster form presentation.

Conclusions

The method presented in this study provides a good framework for the evaluation of the scientific evidence. The findings achieved should be taken into consideration by the Scientific Societies during the contributions selection phase, with the aim of achieving a continuous improvement of work quality. In the future, it would be interesting to survey the abstract authors to identify reasons for unpublished data.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Castaldi et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B: The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994, 272:143-146.
• [2]Garfunkel JM, Ulshen MH, Hamrick HJ, Lawson EE: Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial decisions. JAMA 1994, 272:137-138.
• [3]Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, Hogan JW, Zhu Q, Reiling J, Pace B: Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002, 287:2825-2828.
• [4]Kemper KJ, McCarthy PL, Cicchetti DV: Improving participation and interrater agreement in scoring ambulatory pediatric association abstract. How well have we succeeded? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996, 150:380-383.
• [5]Lin JM, Bohland JW, Andrews P, et al.: An analysis of the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Neuroscience from 2001 to 2006. PLoS One 2008, 3:e2052.
• [6]Poolman RW, Keijser LCM, de Waal Malefijt MC, et al.: Reviewer agreement in scoring 419 abstracts for scientific orthopedics meetings. Acta Orthop 2007, 78(2):278-284.
• [7]Bhandari M, Templeman D, Tornetta P: Interrater reliability in grading abstracts for the orthopaedic trauma association. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 423:217-221.
• [8]Van Der Steen LP, Hage JJ, et al.: Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital: Reliability of a structured method of selecting abstracts for a plastic surgical scientific meeting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003, 111:2215-2222.
• [9]Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF: Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 2003, 290:495-501.
• [10]Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G: Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 1998, 280(3):254-257.
• [11]Gorman RL, Oderda GM: Publication of presented abstracts at annual scientific meetings: a measure of quality? Vet Hum Toxicol 1990, 32(5):470-472.
• [12]Juzych MS, Shin DH, Coffey J, Juzych L, Shin D: Whatever happened to abstracts from different sections of the association for research in vision and ophthalmology? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993, 34(5):1879-1882.
• [13]Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, Adams D, Vandermeer B, Armstrong PW: Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2006, 295(11):1281-1287.
• [14]Yentis SM, Campbell FA, Lerman J: Publication of abstracts presented at anaesthesia meetings. Can J Anaesth. 1993, 40(7):632-634.
• [15]Preston CF, Bhandari M, Fulkerson E, Ginat D, Egol KA, Koval KJ: The consistency between scientific papers presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and their subsequent full-text publication. J Orthop Trauma. 2006, 20(2):129-133.
• [16]Yoon PD, Chalasani V, Woo HH: Conversion rates of abstracts presented at the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) Annual Scientific Meeting into full-text journal articles. BJU Int 2012, 110(4):485-489.
• [17]Schnatz PF, Romegialli A, Abrantes J, Marakovits K, Cunningham D, O’Sullivan DM: North American Menopause Society: The North American Menopause Society: from abstract to publication. Menopause. 2008, 15(5):996-1001.
• [18]Chand V, Rosenfeldt FL, Pepe S: The publication rate and impact of abstracts presented at the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (1999–2005). Heart Lung Circ. 2008, 17(5):375-379.
• [19]Winnik S, Raptis DA, Walker JH, Hasun M, Speer T, Clavien PA, Komajda M, Bax JJ, Tendera M, Fox K, Van de Werf F, Mundow C, Lüscher TF, Ruschitzka F, Matter CM: From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citation. Eur Heart J 2012, 33(24):3034-3045.
• [20]Raptis DA, Oberkofler CE, Gouma D, Garden OJ, Bismuth H, Lerut T, Clavien PA: Fate of the peer review process at the ESA: long-term outcome of submitted studies over a 5-year period. Ann Surg 2010, 252(5):715-725.
• [21]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 Jt Surg Am. 2002, 84-A(4):615-621.
• [22]Sprague S, Bhandari M, Deveraux PJ, et al.: Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstract annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2003, 85:158-163.
• [23]Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;18(2). doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3.
• [24]Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1994, 272:158-162.
• [25]Von Elm E, Costanza MC, Walder B, Tramèr MR: More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 10(3):12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Vecchi S, Belleudi V, Amato L, Davoli M, Perucci CA: Does direction of results of abstracts submitted to scientific conferences on drug addiction predict full publication? BMC Med Res Methodol 2009, 8(9):23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Castaldi S, Colombo A, D’Errico R, Bert F: Siliquini R and study group: Study for the quality assessment of abstracts presented to Italian public health national conferences: a 6 years survey. Ann Ig 2013, 25(5):377-387.
• [28]Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied logistic regression (Wiley Series in probability and statistics). 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York; 2000.
• [29]Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G: Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 1998, 280:257-259.
• [30]Ng L, Hersey K, Fleshner N: Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. BJU Int 2004, 94:79-81.
• [31]Smith WA, Cancel QV, Tseng TY, Sultan S, Vieweg J, Dahm P: Factors associated with the full publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. J Urol 2007, 177:1084-1089.
• [32]Eloubeidi MA, Wade SB, Provenzale D: Factors associated with acceptance and full publication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 53:275-282.
• [33]Timmer A, Blum T, Lankisch PG: Publication rates following pancreas meetings. Pancreas 2001, 23:212-215.
• [34]Chalmers I: Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990, 263:1405-1408.