Frequency and factors influencing publication of abstracts presented at three major nephrology meetings

International Archives of Medicine

Chaim M Bell¹  Ari Juda¹  Ron Wald¹  Ziv Harel¹ 

[1] Department of Medicine and Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

关键词: publication rate;    nephrology;    Abstract;   

Others  :  812147
DOI  :  10.1186/1755-7682-4-40

 received in 2011-10-05, accepted in 2011-12-06,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background and Objectives

There have been no contemporary studies assessing abstract publication rates and the factors associated with full publication within the field of nephrology. As such, it is unclear whether a publication bias exists for abstracts presented at nephrology meetings, which may hinder the dissemination of potentially important results. Our objective was to review a selection of abstracts presented at 3 major nephrology meetings to determine the proportion that reach full publication and factors associated with full publication.

Methods

300 randomly selected abstracts presented as posters at three annual nephrology meetings in 2006 [American Society of Nephrology (ASN), European Renal Association (ERA), and National Kidney Foundation (NKF)] were reviewed. Accepted methods of literature search were performed to determine subsequent journal publication. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between abstract characteristics and subsequent full publication.

Results

127 (42%) abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals at 4.5 years. On multivariable analysis, basic science research (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.44-5.61 as compared to clinical research) and the scientific meeting [OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.60-5.15 (ASN); OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.07-3.45(ERA) as compared to NKF] were significantly associated with full publication.

Conclusions

Almost two-fifths of abstracts presented at three major nephrology meetings are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Basic science content and the meeting at which the abstract was presented are associated with publication. Further research is needed to ascertain the impact of other important factors on abstract publication rates to address publication bias in the renal literature.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Harel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Riordan FA: Do presenters to paediatric meetings get their work published? Arch Dis Child 2000, 83(6):524-526.
• [2]Gorman RL, Oderda GM: Publication of presented abstracts at annual scientific meetings: a measure of quality? Vet Hum Toxicol 1990, 32(5):470-472.
• [3]Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von EE: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, (2):MR000005.
• [4]Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1994, 272(2):158-162.
• [5]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.
• [6]Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL: Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992, 267(3):374-378.
• [7]Juzych MS, Shin DH, Coffey JB, Parrow KA, Tsai CS, Briggs KS: Pattern of publication of ophthalmic abstracts in peer-reviewed journals. Ophthalmology 1991, 98(4):553-556.
• [8]Gilbert WM, Pitkin RM: Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine meeting presentations: what gets published and why? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191(1):32-35.
• [9]Sanossian N, Ohanian AG, Saver JL, Kim LI, Ovbiagele B: Frequency and determinants of nonpublication of research in the stroke literature. Stroke 2006, 37(10):2588-2592.
• [10]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(3):275-282.
• [11]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-A(4):615-621.
• [12]Hashkes P, Uziel Y: The publication rate of abstracts from the 4th Park City Pediatric Rheumatology meeting in peer-reviewed journals: what factors influenced publication? J Rheumatol 2003, 30(3):597-602.
• [13]Glick N, MacDonald I, Knoll G, Brabant A, Gourishankar S: Factors associated with publication following presentation at a transplantation meeting. Am J Transplant 2006, 6(3):552-556.
• [14]Peng PH, Wasserman JM, Rosenfeld RM: Factors influencing publication of abstracts presented at the AAO-HNS Annual Meeting. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006, 135(2):197-203.
• [15]Miguel-Dasit A, Marti-Bonmati L, Aleixandre R, Sanfeliu P, Bautista D: Publication of material presented at radiologic meetings: authors' country and international collaboration. Radiology 2006, 239(2):521-528.
• [16]Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Rosati RA: Regression Modelling Strategies for Improved Prognostic Prediction. 1984, 143-152.
• [17]Davies MW, Dunster KR, East CE, Lingwood BE: Fate of abstracts published in the proceedings of the first annual Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand Congress in 1997. J Paediatr Child Health 2002, 38(5):501-506.
• [18]Goldman L, Loscalzo A: Publication rates of research originally presented in abstract form in three subspecialties of internal medicine. 1982, 13-17.
• [19]Castillo J, Garcia-Guasch R, Cifuentes I: Fate of abstracts from the Paris 1995 European Society of Anaesthesiologists meeting. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2002, 19(12):888-893.
• [20]Stolk P, Egberts AC, Leufkens HG: Fate of abstracts presented at five International Conferences on Pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE): 1995-1999. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002, 11(2):105-111.
• [21]Timmer A, Blum T, Lankisch PG: Publication rates following pancreas meetings. Pancreas 2001, 23(2):212-215.
• [22]Kiroff GK: Publication bias in presentations to the Annual Scientific Congress. ANZ J Surg 2001, 71(3):167-171.
• [23]Fesperman SF, West CS, Bischoff CJ, Algood CB, Vieweg J, Dahm P: Study characteristics of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the southeastern section of the American Urological Association (1996-2005). J Urol 2008, 179(2):667-671.
• [24]Strippoli GF, Craig JC, Schena FP: The number, quality, and coverage of randomized controlled trials in nephrology. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004, 15(2):411-419.
• [25]von EE, Costanza MC, Walder B, Tramer MR: More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3:12.
• [26]National Kidney Foundation: National Kidney Foundation Continuing Medical Education Program Mission Statement. 2011.