Fate of abstracts published in the proceedings of the first annual Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand Congress in 1997. Lost information? The fate of papers presented at the 40th society for Social Medicine Conference. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. Methodologists and their methods. Do methodologists write up their conference presentations or is it just 15 minutes of fame? Pattern of publication of ophthalmic abstracts in peer-reviewed journals. [Publication rate of original papers orally presented at the Journées Françaises de Radiologie 1996]. Whatever happened to abstracts from different sections of the association for research in vision and ophthalmology? Publication bias in presentations to the Annual Scientific Congress. Factors associated with acceptance and full publication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form. Publication rates of abstracts from two pharmacy meetings. Publication of abstracts presented at diabetes meetings. Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. Publication patterns of presentations at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine and North American Primary Care Research Group annual meetings. Publication pattern of papers presented at the American Society for Surgery of the Hand annual meeting. The fate of neuroradiologic abstracts presented at national meetings in 1993: rate of subsequent publication in peer-reviewed, indexed journals. Outcomes of cytopathology studies presented at national pathology meetings. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. Scientific presentations and their publication. Experience over a 10-year period in the Argentine Division of the I.A.D.R. Publication rates of abstracts presented at the 1993 annual Academy meeting. Abstracts of trials presented at the Vth World Congress of Psychiatry (Mexico, 1971): a cohort study. Published or perished: what becomes of papers presented at oncology nursing society congresses? [Publications derived from free communications at the XX Congress of the Anesthesiology and Resuscitation Spanish Association (Anesthesia 92)]. [The scientific value of society reports in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde]. Fate of abstracts from the Paris 1995 European Society of Anaesthesiologists meeting. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. Do presenters to paediatric meetings get their work published? Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society. Full publication of trials initially reported as abstracts in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 1980-2000. Scientific abstracts at the Society for Adolescent Medicine meetings: a 3-decade comparison. Peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a regional surgical meeting. Publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society meetings. Time to publication as full reports of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in cystic fibrosis. Publication rates following pancreas meetings. Converting conference presentations into publications. Research outcomes in British gastroenterology: an audit of the subsequent full publication of abstracts presented at the British Society of Gastroenterology. Publication of presented abstracts at annual scientific meetings: a measure of quality? Do paediatric research presentations at local meetings get published? A survey of the publication history of randomly selected IADR/AADR abstracts presented in 1983 and 1984. Publication of abstracts presented at anaesthesia meetings. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. Publication bias in gastroenterological research - a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. Fate of abstracts presented at five International Conferences on Pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE): 1995-1999. Publication patterns of papers presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Publications resulting from anesthesia meeting abstracts. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. The publication rates of presentations at major Spine Specialty Society meetings (NASS, SRS, ISSLS). Publication of research presented at the pediatric meetings. Change in selection. Post-convention dissemination of papers presented at ASHA National Conventions, 1967-1976: stuttering, hearing aids, and alaryngeal speech. Conversion rate of research abstracts to publications in pediatric dentistry. Abstract to publication ratio for papers presented at scientific meetings: how does emergency medicine compare? Resident research projects: frequency of presentation and publication in a national forum. [Fate of presentations given at German anesthesia congresses]. Publication of abstracts submitted to the annual meeting of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? Publication rates for the scientific sessions of the OTA. Orthopaedic Trauma Association. The publication outcome for the papers presented at the 1990 ABA conference.
To examine the fate of research presented at the first annual Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (PSANZ) Congress in 1997, by determining: the rate of publication in peer-reviewed biomedical journals; publication rate by discipline; journals in which work was published; concordance for aims, conclusions, authors and number of study subjects; and time from presentation to publication.
                A MEDLINE search was conducted for any publication in a peer-reviewed journal resulting from a publishable abstract from the proceedings of the first annual PSANZ Congress in 1997. Searching was completed 42 months post-congress. The concordance of aims, conclusions, authors and number of subjects between abstract and published paper was determined.
                There were 172 publishable abstracts in the proceedings of the PSANZ Congress in 1997, and 78 (45%) were published as 83 articles. Basic sciences had the highest publication rate (67%) and midwifery the lowest (20%). Articles were published in 41 journals, with one-third of the articles in three paediatric journals. There was a match with aims in 75%, and with conclusions in 65%. There were 47/77 with the same number of subjects, 20/77 with more and 10/77 with fewer. There were 22 articles with one author added, 12 had more than one author added, 11 had one author removed and five had more than one author removed. Median time-to-publication was 18 months (interquartile range 9-26 months).
                A publication rate of 45% is comparable to other conferences. Basic science and neonatology had the highest publication rates. There were considerable differences between abstract and published article in terms of aims, conclusions, number of subjects and authors. nan To estimate the rate of full publication of the results of randomized clinical trials initially presented as abstracts at national ophthalmology meetings in 1988 and 1989; and to combine data from this study with data from similar studies to determine the rate at which abstracts are subsequently published in full and the association between selected study characteristics and full publication.
                Ophthalmology abstracts were identified by review of 1988 and 1989 meeting abstracts for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Similar studies were identified either from reports contained in our files or through a MEDLINE search, which combined the textword "abstract" with "or" statements to the Medical Subject Headings ABSTRACTING & INDEXING, CLINICAL TRIALS, PEER REVIEW, PERIODICALS, MEDICAL SOCIETIES, PUBLISHING, MEDLINE, INFORMATION SERVICES, and REGISTRIES.
                Ophthalmology abstracts were selected from the meeting proceedings if they reported results from a randomized controlled trial. For the summary study, similar studies were eligible for inclusion if they described followup and subsequent full publication for a cohort of abstracts describing the results of any type of research study. All studies had to have followed up abstracts for at least 24 months to be included.
                Authors of ophthalmology abstracts were contacted by letter to ascertain whether there was subsequent full publication. Other information, including characteristics of the study design possibly related to publication, was taken from the abstract. For the summary study, rates of full publication were taken directly from reported results, as were associations between study factors (ie, "significant" results and sample size) and full publication.
                Sixty-six percent (61/93) of ophthalmology abstracts were published in full. Combined results from 11 studies showed that 51% (1198/2391) of all abstracts were subsequently published in full. Full publication was weakly associated with "significant" results and sample size above the median.
                Approximately one half of all studies initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full-length reports. Most are published in full within 2 years of appearance as abstracts. Full publication may be associated with "significant" results and sample size. To assess the extent to which abstracts of methodological research, initially presented at meetings on systematic reviews, have gone on to be published as full articles.
                Full publication was assessed in three ways: a search was carried out of The Cochrane Library; a search was conducted using MEDLINE; and a questionnaire was sent to the contact author of each abstract.
                Approximately half of the abstracts had not been, or were unlikely ever to be, published in full.
                The rate of full publication of abstracts related to the methodology of systematic reviews seems similar to that for randomized trials. Presentation of research work at scientific meetings and professional societies is an important first step toward effective scientific communication of research results. To determine the current publication patterns of abstracts, a computerized MEDLINE literature search was performed on 175 randomly selected ophthalmic clinical and basic science abstracts published in conjunction with two ophthalmic national meetings. This search revealed that 105 abstracts (60%) led to full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals within 50 to 56 months of the meeting date. A median interval of 13 months occurred from date of abstract publication to acceptance of the corresponding article. Most articles appeared within 3 years of abstract presentation. Sixty-four percent (48 of 75) of the posters and free papers presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology in November 1984 led to full-length articles, as did 57% (57 of 100) of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology in May 1985. These findings emphasize the preliminary nature of abstracts. The fact that nearly 60% of abstracts are published reflects favorably on the review process of both meetings. The purpose of the present study was to determine the publication rate in Medline-indexed journals of papers originally presented at the Journées Françaises de Radiologie (JFR96).
                Proceedings from the JFR 96 were reviewed by two observers in conference. A Medline search encompassing 1997-1999 was performed for the lead author of all abstracts of original papers. Publication year and the journal of publication were recorded.
                456 oral presentations were analysed, 39 papers were subsequently published corresponding to a publication rate of 8.5%. 10 papers were published in Radiology, 4 in European Radiology and 4 in the Journal de Radiologie, the other 21 in other journals. Publication rate was significantly higher for two sessions: Research session (publication rate was 22%) and Bone and Joint session (publication rate was 16%).
                Less than 10% of abstracts presented at JFR 96 were subsequently published in Medline-indexed journals. This rate is lower than the publication rate of papers presented at other medical meetings. The authors investigated the fate of abstracts from each ARVO section (May 1985 meeting), the overall publication percentage, and the journals in which the abstract-derived articles were published.
                They performed a MEDLINE search by first author for 25 or 26 randomly selected abstracts from each section to identify those that led to full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals.
                Overall, 63% of abstracts led to full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals within our search period of 87 months. The publication rate of oral presentation abstracts (68%) was significantly higher than that of poster presentation abstracts (56%). A greater proportion of basic science-oriented abstracts (67%) led to publication than the clinically oriented abstracts (56%). The rate of publication was lowest for the Cornea section (40%) and highest for Physiology and Pharmacology (80%) and Biochemistry (76%). The abstract-derived articles were published in 67 different peer-reviewed journals, with 43% of the articles appearing in only five journals.
                The fact that the majority of abstracts led to full-length articles supports ARVO's goal of a large interdisciplinary appeal with the exchange of ideas among different investigators. Free papers presented to the Annual Scientific Congress (ASC) of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) were reviewed for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. Reports were examined for evidence of publication bias.
                Suitable free papers were identified from the proceedings of the meetings and authors were contacted to obtain information about the research reported and any publications resulting from it.
                Responses were obtained from 302 of 576 presentations considered suitable. A total of 55% of responding authors reported publication of their paper. Basic science papers were most likely to be published. There was a significant bias in favour of publication of positive results (98 of 139 positive vs 76 of 159 inconclusive or negative reports; P < 0.01). Retrospective data were as likely to be published as prospective (51% and 57%, respectively). Reports describing studies of high-level evidence were more likely to be published in journals with a high impact factor.
                The ASC is a comprehensive meeting that attracts a wide range of free papers from most sections of the RACS. There appears to be no evidence of bias in selection of papers for inclusion in the meeting but there is bias in the subsequent publication, which favours positive reports. Many abstracts submitted to annual scientific meetings never come to full publication in peer-reviewed journals. The objective of this study was to determine factors associated with the fate of endoscopic research abstracts submitted to the annual scientific meeting of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).
                All abstracts (n = 461) submitted to the annual meeting of the ASGE in May of 1994 were retrospectively reviewed. The following databases were searched for evidence of publication of abstracts in full-manuscript form: Medline, HealthSTAR, Current Contents, CINHAL, and Cancerlit. All abstracts were reviewed between May 4, 1998 and June 30, 1998. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to determine the association between abstract characteristics and acceptance for presentation at the meeting and for publication.
                Fifty-five percent (247/451) of submitted abstracts were accepted for presentation. In univariate analysis, pediatric studies, prospective studies, randomized studies, and studies from university-affiliated medical centers (UAMC), were more likely to be accepted for presentation (p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, the variables: pediatric studies (p = 0.01), prospective studies (p = 0.005), randomized studies (p = 0.06), and studies from UAMC (p = 0.01) predicted acceptance of abstracts for presentation at the meeting. The overall publication rate was 25.1%. The publication rates 1, 2, 3, and 4 years after the meeting were 6.7%, 16.2%, 22.8%, and 25.1%, respectively. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that accepted abstracts (p = 0.0003) studies reporting positive results (p = 0.0015), and studies from outside the United States (p = 0.036) were more likely to be published in manuscript form.
                The overall publication rate of abstracts reporting endoscopic research is 25%, lower than that in any published report from other medical societies. Abstracts from the United States were less likely to be published in full-manuscript form. Although there was no positive outcome bias for acceptance of abstracts for presentation at the meeting, there was bias toward publication of statistically significant results. Further investigations are warranted to determine the variation in the publication of research results according to country of origin and to determine factors that hinder publication of GI endoscopic research in manuscript form. To determine the rate of publication of abstracts presented at the 1994 American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP) Mid-year Clinical Meeting and the 1994 American College of Clinical Pharmacists (ACCP) Annual Meeting.
                Abstracts presented at the 1994 ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting and the 1994 ACCP Annual Meeting were evaluated for subsequent publication as full articles in journals indexed in MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Current Contents.
                Five hundred one abstracts presented at the 1994 ASHP Mid-year Clinical Meeting were evaluated; 55 (11%) of these had been published. Two hundred fifteen abstracts presented at the 1994 ACCP Annual Meeting were evaluated; 71 (33%) of these had been published.
                The publication rates for abstracts presented at ASHP and ACCP meetings were found to be lower than many of those for other medical groups. The presentation of research abstracts at professional meetings is an integral part of the exchange of scientific information; however, many of the presented abstracts are not subsequently published as full research reports. The failure to publish the results of the studies may limit the ability of a reader to judge the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the research. This could affect the use of the findings in clinical practice and in supporting or refuting other research findings. nan Research projects are frequently presented at national meetings not only to make the data available, but also to further critically evaluate the project. The ultimate goal remains publication of the research. We assessed the publication rate of presentations at 1993-95 annual meetings.
                All presentations at the scientific sessions were searched in the computerized database Melvyl MEDLINE and PubMed. The papers were categorized in 6 broad groups.
                The overall proportion of presentations that were published was 32%. Clinical papers in pediatrics had the highest publication rate, followed by basic science research in laryngology and plastics.
                The publication rate of 32% is lower than the rate at meetings in other fields, reflecting variability in selection criteria for the presentations and quality of abstracts presented. Basic science presentations did not have a greater publication rate as compared to clinical presentations. Substantial numbers of clinical trials continue to be reported only in summary reports that present insufficient methodological details to permit informed judgments about the likely validity of the conclusions. Using a cohort of 176 controlled trials reported in summary form, we tested the hypotheses that they would be more likely to be followed by full reports if, on the basis of the information provided in the summary report, (1) the trial was judged to be methodologically sound, (2) the results favored the test treatment, and (3) the sample size was relatively large. The results of univariate and multivariate analyses provided support for only the third of these hypotheses. Investigators, as well as those who fund and sanction the conduct of clinical research, should make greater efforts to ensure that clinical trials are reported properly. The annual meetings of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) and the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) are important peer-reviewed venues for family medicine academicians to present their research. However, a relatively small number of individuals actually hear each presentation. In order to permanently share their research with a large number of peers, these presenters need to take the next step and publish completed manuscripts. This study examined the frequency with which presentations at these meetings are eventually published.
                All abstracts from the 1987 and 1988 meetings of NAPCRG and the PEER and research sections of STFM were followed by performing a Medline computer search for the presenting author. Publications that matched the presentations were identified, and information was recorded about the elapsed time between presentation and publication, and the journal where publication occurred.
                Just under half (48%) of all the presentations were published within 4 or 5 years. There was no difference between 1987 and 1988 presentations, nor between NAPCRG and the combined STFM presentations. However, 69% of STFM research presentations were published compared to 31% of the peer presentations (X2 = 20.6, df = 2, P < .001). The STFM research publications also tended to be in print sooner than other presentations. Fifty-six percent of the publications occurred in family practice journals, with Family Medicine and the Journal of Family Practice being the most common journals.
                Approximately half of the presentations at STFM and NAPCRG annual meeting are published within 4 to 5 years. This is consistent with publication rates found for other specialty meetings. The reasons for not publishing are numerous and need to be better elucidated to help family medicine academicians complete the research loop and disseminate their findings to the scientific community. Publication of research results in peer-reviewed journals represents the consummation of the scientific method. In order to determine the rate of publication of oral presentations at the annual meeting of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand, every presentation (n = 397) from the 1990, 1991, and 1992 annual meetings was subjected to a Medline Plus computer search in January 1995. Meeting abstracts were grouped by program designation to scientific session, research session, and residents and fellows conference categories, and a Kaplan-Meier survivorship curve was formulated for each category. We determined an ultimate publication rate of 52% at 53 months. Subanalysis by year of presentation showed rates of 32%, 48%, and 51% for the respective years 1992, 1991, and 1990, with publication for most research occurring within 3 years of presentation. No statistically significant difference existed between the three categories, although a distinct trend toward higher ultimate publication rate (74%) was found for research abstracts. The ultimate publication rate for hand surgery presentations is comparable to that reported for other disciplines. Abstract presentations are a valuable means of rapidly conveying new information; however, abstracts that fail to eventually become published are of little use to the general medical community. Our goals were to determine the publication rate of neuroradiologic papers originally presented at national meetings in 1993 and to assess publication rate as a function of neuroradiologic subspecialty and study design.
                Proceedings from the 1993 ASNR and RSNA meetings were reviewed. A MEDLINE search encompassing 1993-1997 was performed cross-referencing lead author and at least one text word based on the abstract title. All ASNR and RSNA neuroradiologic abstracts were included. Study type, subspecialty classification, and sample size were tabulated. Publication rate, based on study design and neuroradiologic subspecialty, was compared with overall publication rate. Median duration from meeting presentation to publication was calculated, and the journals of publication were noted.
                Thirty-seven percent of ASNR abstracts and 33% of RSNA neuroradiologic abstracts were published as articles in indexed medical journals. Publication rates among neuroradiologic subspecialty types were not significantly different. Prospective studies presented at the ASNR were published at a higher rate than were retrospective studies. There was no difference between the publication rate of experimental versus clinical studies. Neuroradiologic abstracts were published less frequently than were abstracts within other medical specialties. Median time between abstract presentation and publication was 15 months.
                Approximately one third of neuroradiologic abstracts presented at national meetings in 1993 were published in indexed journals. This rate is lower than that of abstracts from medical specialties other than radiology. The purpose of this study was to determine what factors influence the final publication status of cytopathology studies presented at national meetings. Abstracts involving cytopathology material were obtained from the following journals: Modern Pathology (volume 11, 1998), Acta Cytologica (volume 42, 1998), and the American Journal of Clinical Pathology (volumes 109 and 110, 1998). Using the National Library of Medicine Website, each abstract was searched by author and topic to determine if the study was published as a peer-reviewed article. The following parameters were evaluated: meeting where the abstract was presented, type of institution where the research was based, type of material used in the study, and application of ancillary techniques used in the study. The subsequent published articles were evaluated for journal and time to publication. Out of 257 studies presented in 1998, 85 (33%) were published in peer-reviewed journals by May 2000. The majority of papers were published in Diagnostic Cytopathology (n = 21), Acta Cytologica (n = 15), and Cancer (n = 18). The mean time for publication was 12.8 mo. The highest percentage of published studies was presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) meeting (50% of presented abstracts), followed by American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) (28%) and American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) (17%) meetings. Ancillary techniques were applied in 40 of 85 (47%) published studies, 27 of 85 (32%) articles focused on morphology, and 18 of 85 (21%) papers covered other topics (e.g., quality assurance (QA), cost, and role of cytology). In nonpublished studies (n = 172), special techniques were the main focus in 40%, morphology in 25%, and other topics in 35% of abstracts. The great majority (97%) of published studies were from academic institutions. Gynecological and nongynecological material were roughly equally covered in published and nonpublished studies. Only a relatively small percentage of presented studies was finalized in the form of peer-reviewed articles. Type of material and application of ancillary techniques do not significantly influence the outcome.
                Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Studies with positive results are more likely to be published in biomedical journals than are studies with negative results. However, many studies submitted for consideration at scientific meetings are never published in full; bias in this setting is poorly studied.
                To identify features associated with the fate of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.
                Prospective observational cohort, with 5-year follow-up of all research submitted for consideration to the major annual 1991 US research meeting in the specialty of emergency medicine.
                All research abstracts submitted for consideration at the meeting for possible presentation.
                Characteristics associated with acceptance for presentation at the meeting and subsequent publication as a full manuscript.
                A total of 492 research abstracts were submitted from programs in emergency medicine and other specialties affiliated with 103 US medical schools. A total of 179 (36%) were accepted for presentation and 214 (43%) were published in 44 journals. Of the 179 abstracts accepted for presentation, 111 studies were published. Scientific quality of abstracts or prestige of the journal in which the study was eventually published did not predict either of these outcomes. The best predictors (by logistic regression) of meeting acceptance were a subjective "originality" factor (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.89) and positive results (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.07-3.84), and, for publication, meeting acceptance (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.49-4.35) and large sample size (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.23-4.31). Forty-nine percent (241) of abstracts did not report on blinding, and 24% (118) did not report on randomization. Acceptance and publication were both more likely for positive outcomes (P=.03). Funnel plots showed the classic distribution of positive-outcome ("publication") bias at each of the submission, acceptance, and publication phases. Meeting acceptance predicted publication with a sensitivity of only 51%, specificity of 71%, positive predictive value of 57%, and negative predictive value of 66%.
                Positive-outcome bias was evident when studies were submitted for consideration and was amplified in the selection of abstracts for both presentation and publication, neither of which was strongly related to study design or quality. A computerized search of 276 randomly selected cardiology abstracts published in conjunction with three national meetings revealed that 137 abstracts (49.6 per cent) led to full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals within a period of 37 to 43 months. The median interval between publication of the abstract and of the article was 14 months. Full-length articles were derived from 5. per cent of the abstracts presented at the meetings of the American Federation for Clinical Research, the American Society for Clinical Investigation, and the Association of American Physicians ("clinical societies"); 55 per cent of the abstracts presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions; 49 per cent of the abstracts presented at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions; and 35 per cent of the abstracts submitted to the clinical societies but not presented. During the observation period, each abstract was cited a mean of 1.6 times in a journal reference list; the number of citations was not significantly higher for abstracts that led to articles than for abstracts that did not. These findings emphasize the preliminary nature of abstracts and suggest restraint in their citation as references. At present the "Impact Factor" developed by the Scientific Information Institute (Philadelphia), is an indicator of the quality of the journals in terms of the quality of the papers which are published. The results of odontological research which are presented and discussed at the annual meetings of the DAAIIO are proof of the quality and quantity of scientific production in this area in Argentina. Presentations are undoubtedly numerous. However, their diffusion and qualitative evaluation are of utmost importance. One way to estimate these parameters would be to monitor the ratio between number of presentations and their publication as full papers in journals with a system of referees (Ratio Publ./Pres.). With this aim in mind the presentations at DAAIIO over the 1980-1989 period were considered. Employing the author index of the DAAIIO meetings, we searched for possible publications in the Index Dental and the Index Medicus. The references were compared with the results presented to disregard publications which had not been previously presented at DAAIIO meetings. The data obtained were grouped according to subject area and Research Center. A total of 747 presentations led to 94 publications, the Publ./Pres. Ratio being 1/8 (12.5%). The ratio for each research center was the following: Univ. Buenos Aires 1/7; Natl. Univ. La Plata 1/8; Natl. Univ. Córdoba 1/15. The research groups with the highest publication ratios were Dent. Mat., Natl. Univ. La Plata 1/3; Clinical Pathol., Univ. Bs. As. 1/4; Oral Pathol., Univ. Bs. As. 1/4; Physiol. and Pharmacol., Univ. Bs. As. 1/4; Natl. Univ. Córdoba 1/7. The majority of the publications within 2 years of presentation were in English (69%). These results suggest that an acceptable number of presentations are published, particularly in the area of basic research. We should hope for an increase in the publication/presentation ratio in the future, particularly in the area of applied clinical research since publication would imply technical-scientific quality evaluation of the work by the experts who condition publication. What percent of abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons annual meeting are submitted, survive peer review, and eventually are published? The answer to this fundamental question is important because many national meeting attendees use the unscrutinized information that is presented to alter their surgical practices. At the 1993 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons meeting, 573 abstracts were presented. After a 5-year period, 44% of abstracts presented were published as papers in a peer reviewed journal. The results suggest that for various reasons, the majority of presented material at the Academy meeting has not been authenticated scientifically to be as accurate as papers that survive the rigors of peer review. Systematic reviews should identify all relevant trials in order to minimize the potential for bias and the play of chance in their results. Other specialities have shown that conference proceedings are a rich source of trials, but many of these trials are never fully published.
                All clinical trials presented at a single conference (Vth World Congress of Psychiatry, Mexico, 1971) were identified by hand searching. Full publications of these abstracts were then sought on five databases by searching for the authors or relevant key words.
                Full publications were found for 46% of the abstracts. The odds of publication decreased for abstracts that were from a non-Anglophone country or that failed to mention randomization.
                Anyone wishing to undertake a systematic review of a mental-health care topic should search relevant conference proceedings for trials. nan To analyze the publication in MEDLINE-indexed journals of articles derived from free presentations at the Twentieth Congress of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology (SEDAR) (Anestesia 92) held in 1992.
                Two of the authors independently investigated the publication of research presented at Anestesia 92 in MEDLINE-indexed journals, carrying out a search of authors' names between 1990 and 1998 with no restrictions on language or type of publication. We obtained year of publication and names of journals and extracted the abstracts, then analyzing the number and order of authors, content and time elapsing between the congress and publication.
                Eighty-four articles (17.1%) were published based on 491 congress presentations, with a mean time to publication of 1.8 years (range -2 to 6). Journals specializing in anesthesiology published 79.8%, and Revista Espanola de Anestesiología y Reanimación published 59.5%. Different authors were listed for published articles and congress presentations in 92.9% and the first author had changed in 35.7%. The content of a published article was similar to that of the congress presentation in 46% and scope was reduced for publication in 35.7%.
                Few publications were derived from free presentations at Anestesia 92 and major changes were made in authors and content between congress presentation and publication. To obtain an objective appraisal of the scientific value of abstracts of scientific meetings published in the Dutch Journal of Medicine (Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde; NTvG).
                Retrospective.
                Editorial office of the NTvG.
                A search in MEDLINE was conducted for articles about research presented in 803 abstracts of 54 meetings (29 scientific associations), which appeared in the NTvG in 1988 and January 1989. Scientific associations were assigned to 4 groups (surgery, medicine, non-clinical medicine and a remaining group).
                The overall publication percentage was 48 (385 articles out of 803 presentations). Pathology abstracts showed a significantly higher percentage (65%; p < 0.01), rehabilitation and dermatology abstracts a significantly lower percentage than the overall value (6%; p < 0.00001, 27% respectively; p < 0.04). The larger part of the abstracts was published in the first 2 years after the scientific meeting.
                The scientific relevance of abstracts presented at Dutch scientific meetings is reasonably high, considering the publication percentage. A more rigorous selection by the scientific associations could improve the quality of the abstracts. To assess the publication rate of full papers presented as abstracts at the 1995 meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists, and to assess factors that might predict subsequent full publication.
                All abstracts presented at the meeting and published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (Suppl 1, 1995) were included. To verify subsequent full publication, a MEDLINE search was performed and validated. We studied the average time from the meeting to publication, the first author's country, the subspeciality, the publishing journal of the full report, the type of presentation (oral or poster), the object of investigation, and the quality of research design and of statistical reporting in the abstract.
                Of 472 meeting abstracts, 199 (42.2%) were eventually published. The average (+/- SD) delay between meeting and publication was 16.8 (15.6) months (range 24-60 months). Most papers (79.4%) had been published within 3 yr of the meeting. Circulation, pharmacology and intensive care papers had the highest rates of publication. Sixty-three journals attracted papers, with the British Journal of Anaesthesia publishing most (n = 29). No difference in subsequent publication was found between oral and poster presentations. Randomized trials and animal research were more likely to be published. The number of authors or their positions differed between the abstract and the full publication in 145 cases (72.9%); the first author was changed in 43 cases.
                Less than half of the abstracts accepted at the 1995 European Society of Anesthesiologists' meeting were subsequently published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in the 3 yr following the meeting. Many changes in authorship occurred between the abstract and the full publication. The study architecture and the object of investigation predicted full publication. Publication bias toward studies that favor new therapies has been known to occur for the past 40 years, yet its implications are not well studied in child health. The increased interest in meta-analyses has highlighted the need to identify the totality of evidence when addressing treatment questions.
                To measure the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at a major pediatric scientific meeting that were subsequently published as full-length articles, to investigate factors associated with publication, and to describe the variables that change from abstract to manuscript form.
                The scientific proceedings from the Society for Pediatric Research were hand searched for RCTs (1992-1995). Subsequent publication was ascertained through a search of various electronic databases. Quality of abstracts and manuscripts was measured, and data were extracted using a structured form.
                A total of 264 (59.1%) of 447 abstracts were subsequently published. Almost 64% of RCTs that were subsequently published favored new therapy compared with 43.5% of studies that were never published (P<.001). Mean effect size for published vs unpublished RCTs was 0.74 vs 0.05 (P<.001). Median sample size was larger in published (n = 45) vs unpublished (n = 34) RCTs (P =.02). Quality was significantly lower for abstracts vs published RCTs (P<.001). For 5% of abstracts that were subsequently published, the conclusion regarding treatment efficacy changed.
                Publication bias is a serious threat to assessing the effectiveness of interventions in child health, as little more than half of RCTs presented at a major scientific meeting are subsequently published. There is a need to institute an international registry of RCTs in children so that the totality of evidence can be accessed when assessing treatment effectiveness. Research presented to a scientific meeting is inaccessible to clinicians, unless it is also published in a cited journal.
                To assess the publication rate of studies presented to two UK national paediatric meetings: the Paediatric Research Society (PRS) and the British Paediatric Association (BPA).
                A Medline search in December 1999 for the first authors of all plenary abstracts presented in 1996. If not found, authors contacted by postal questionnaire.
                Information was obtained on 88/89 presentations. Twenty five of 48 PRS and 31 of 40 BPA studies were published in Medline listed journals. The major reason for non-publication was that they had not been submitted (PRS 15/48, BPA 6/40). Some authors were still hoping to do so (PRS 7, BPA 2). Other reasons were: publication in other forms (theses, book chapters, non-Medline journals) (PRS 5, BPA 2), or still being reviewed (PRS 3, BPA 1). Ten of 11 randomised, controlled trials were published, but only 20 of 37 observational studies were submitted and published.
                Presenters to paediatric meetings need help in submitting and publishing their work. Although the timely conveyance of information at national meetings like those of the Orthopaedic Research Society is critical to the dissemination of new scientific research, the ultimate goal of most researchers is to publish work in peer-reviewed journals referenced in Medline. All of the abstracts that were presented at the podium at the 1991, 1992, and 1993 annual meetings of the Orthopaedic Research Society and printed in the appropriate yearly transactions were included in this study (n=888,296 per year). A detailed computerized Medline search of each author on the abstract and the appropriate keywords from the title was performed until a publication was found; otherwise, the abstract was excluded. The database was searched through June 30, 1997. A total of 463 (52%) of the abstracts were published by July 1, 1997. The percentages for each individual year were similar: 148 (50%) were published in 1991, 162 (55%) in 1992, and 153 (52%) in 1993. Publication of the majority of these papers (93.1%, 431 of 463) occurred within 4 years of the respective meeting. The Journal of Orthopaedic Research published the majority of these papers (17.5%), followed by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), the Journal of Biomechanics, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and Spine (each 5.2%). No significant differences in the rate of publication were observed between papers of 10 broad subject categories (p=0.103). These results are similar to those from other basic science meetings and to the recently reported results for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Abstract Failure to identify all relevant reports of controlled trials is a potential source of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. The present study aims to identify how many reports of trials -initially published as conference abstracts in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine were subsequently published in full. We identified trial reports by handsearching conference abstracts published in the Journal from 1980 to 2000. We then searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and PubMed to determine how many of these had been subsequently published in full. A total of 962 reports of controlled trials was identified from the conference proceedings of 17 medical societies. Of these, 589 (61%) reports of trials were subsequently published in full, and on average within 1-2 years. Handsearching conference abstracts identified a large number of reports of controlled trials, over one-third of which were unpublished and therefore not easily accessible. The purpose of this study was to review abstracts accepted for presentation at the annual national meeting of the Society for Adolescent Medicine (SAM) over the past 3 decades for subject content and research design.
                Retrospective review was conducted of research abstracts for 3 years, selected at random, for the 1990s and then matched at 10-year intervals for the previous 2 decades. The major categories for subject content were: medical, psychosocial, health services, and miscellaneous; for research design categories were: retrospective, observational, experimental, and miscellaneous. Subsequent publication was also assessed.
                The most notable change over the 3 decades in subject content was a shift from medical topics (58% to 19%) to psychosocial topics [20% to 52% (p < .001)] of abstracts, the latter largely accounted for by increases in topics pertaining to high-risk behaviors. There was a substantial decrease in abstracts concerning medical aspects of chronic illness (p < .001), well-adolescent care, growth and development, and psychosocial aspects of chronic illness (p < .02). Regarding research design, the proportion of retrospective studies decreased over the 3 decades (p < .02); the most prevalent design was observational, with an increase in studies using established databases (p < .02). Less than 15% represented an experimental design. Studies using qualitative analysis appeared for the first time in the 1990s. The percentage of presentations which eventuated in published reports increased from 35% to 63% over the 3 decades (p < .02).
                A significant shift occurred in subject content of scientific abstracts from a medical to a psychosocial emphasis. The proportion of retrospective designs decreased, and qualitative analyses emerged. The likelihood of later publication of the studies increased. The aim of the study was to investigate the proportion of publications arising from work presented at a regional surgical meeting.
                A list of all presentations to the Welsh Surgical Society 1983-95 was compiled and a detailed search made of the Medicine Database. The surgical topic of each presentation, the date of presentation, the date of publication and the journal of publication were recorded.
                University Hospital of Wales.
                Four hundred and ninety-six papers were presented to the society, of which 402 (81%) were by trainees. The most frequent topics of presentation were colorectal (15%), vascular (15%) and hepato-pancreatico-biliary (11%). Two hundred and thirty-three papers (47%) have been published in peer-reviewed journals. The most popular journals for publication were Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (19%), British Journal of Surgery (16%) and Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (8%). The median time from presentation to publication was 17.0 months (interquartile range 10.0-27.5 months).
                Regional surgical meetings have an important role in the annual surgical calendar and they are the ideal initial setting for presentation by trainees. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate of scientific papers in peer review journals presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society (ORS) meetings from 1978 to 1995 inclusive. The abstracts of the presentations at ORS meetings are published in Clinical Otolaryngology. A MEDLINE search was performed on abstracts presented at ORS meetings from 1978 to 1995 using both authors and key words within the text of the abstract. The publication rate, journal of publication, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors and change in conclusions of abstracts were tabulated. The publication rate for papers presented at ORS meetings from 1978 to 1995 was 69.09%. The average time to publication was 22.5 months. Papers derived from the ORS abstracts were most commonly published in Clinical Otolaryngology (34%) and Journal of Laryngology and Otology (18.64%). The results indicate that nearly 69% of presented material at the biannual ORS meetings eventually get published in peer reviewed journals. This compares favourably with publication rate of other specialities. To determine 1) what proportion of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at international conferences on cystic fibrosis (CF) are published as full reports, 2) time to publication, and 3) factors that might delay or prevent publication.
                At the end of 1995, the Cochrane CF Group's register of RCTs contained 199 abstracts describing 180 RCTs. Abstracts were identified by handsearching 44 abstract books of three international CF conferences over a 30-year period. We searched the register for subsequent full reports of these RCTs and used survival analysis to investigate time to publication. Using the log-rank test, we examined 1) whether there is a difference in time to publication between reports where the investigators concluded that the test treatment was as effective as or better than the control treatment, and reports where it was not, and 2) whether there is a difference in time to publication according to sample size.
                Thirty-two percent of the 178 abstracts analyzed were subsequently published in full. Survival analysis indicated that the proportions published before 12 months, 2 years, and 5 years were 8.1%, 29%, and 40% respectively. No difference in time to publication was identified when the abstracts were stratified according to conclusions or sample size; no significant association (P > 0.05) existed between time to publication and both sample size and conclusions together.
                Only a small proportion of abstracts of RCTs presented at international conferences on CF are followed by full publication, and usually only after several years. Therefore, many potentially valuable studies do not reach a wide audience. However, we found no consistent factors which might delay or prevent publication. Publication rates and determinants of publication were studied based on abstracts presented at pancreatic meetings. All abstracts presented at the 1994 and 1995 annual meetings of the European Pancreatic Club (EPC) and the American Pancreatic Association (APA) were followed up by searching MEDLINE. Publication rates were compared using log-rank tests and multiple logistic regression. The prestige of the publishing journals was compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests on scientific impact factors (SIF). Overall, 340 abstracts were presented at the EPC, and 254 were presented at the APA. Of these, 203 (59.7%, EPC) and 138 (54.3%, APA) were later published in peer-reviewed journals. Publication rates did not differ by study type or country region of origin. In addition, median SIFs were similar by conference (APA vs. EPC) and research type (basic science vs. clinical studies) (overall, 1.7). However, North American and North/West European articles were published in higher impact journals as compared with those from other countries. Publication rates and median journal SIFs in pancreas research are similar to those reported from other medical specialty meetings. There is no difference by conference, type of research, or origin (North American vs. European). nan nan One measure of the quality of research presented at the annual scientific meeting is publication of the data presented in a peer review journal. This allows for a more rigorous review of design, methodology and conclusions. To determine the rate of subsequent publication, MEDLARS searches were performed on the 269 presented abstracts at the 1984 and 1986 meetings of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, The American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, The American Board of Medical Toxicology and the Canadian Association of Poison Control Centers. Of the 296 presented abstracts, 134 (49.8%) were published. There was no difference in the eventual publication rate between the 1984 and 1986 meeting. There were 38 non-reviewed symposia publications and 96 peer-reviewed articles. Publications of 35.7% of presented abstracts in peer review journals compares poorly with the percentage of peer-reviewed publication from other scientific meetings. If publication in a peer-review journal is important, steps should be taken to improve the percentage of presented abstracts that are accepted by peer-review journals. Accessibility of research done locally to clinicians remains limited unless it is in the published form. The publication rate of research presentations at the Annual Malaysian Paediatric Association, Perinatal Society of Malaysia and Academy of Medicine Malaysia in 1997 and 1998 was determined. One hundred and five (95.5%) of 110 research presentations were carried out in Malaysia. Thirty-seven (35.2%) presentations were published. University-affiliated institutions were more likely to publish their research presentations as compared to Ministry of Health hospitals (OR 3.1 95% CI 1.4-6.8, p < 0.01). There is a need to encourage publication of local research presentations. University-affiliated institutions performed better due to institution pressure for career advancement. IADR/AADR abstracts of research projects to be presented at the Annual Meeting are published each year in the Journal of Dental Research. An assumption often made is that the material in these abstracts is subsequently published as journal articles. The validity of this assumption was assessed in this study. Following a review of the literature to establish study criteria, the specific objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the percentage of IADR/AADR abstracts subsequently published as articles, (2) the length of time from abstract to publication, and (3) the amount of discrepancy between abstract and article. Ten percent of the IADR/AADR abstracts from the years 1983 (n = 125) and 1984 (n = 150) were randomly selected and surveyed for their publication history. Major reference sources were checked for determination of whether articles had resulted from the abstracts. Of the 1983-1984 abstracts surveyed, the results indicated that more abstracts were not published (78.5% in 1983/76.0% in 1984) than were published (21.6% in 1983/24.0% in 1984). Of those articles previously published as abstracts, the greatest number (44.4% in 1983 47.2% in 1984) were published within ten to 21 months following presentation. The greatest amount of discrepancy between the abstract and the article involved names and numbers of authors, titles, purpose statements, and results/conclusions. In other health disciplines, the percentage of abstracts subsequently published as articles ranged from 31.1% to 53.9%. Since a smaller percentage of the IADR/AADR abstracts surveyed in this study were ultimately published (21.6% to 24%). IADR/AADR should consider various strategies to improve the quality of abstracts and their accessibility. To determine the publication rate of abstracts as peer-reviewed manuscripts during the five years subsequent to their presentation, the rates of publication of abstracts that were presented at meetings of four anaesthesia societies (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS), Anaesthesia Research Society (ARS) and Canadian Anaesthetists' Society (CAS), in 1985 were determined. Abstracts (total = 215) from each of the four meetings were selected (ASA n = 114/573 total, IARS n = 39/119, ARS n = 33/99 and CAS n = 29/58) and their appearances in the literature as peer-reviewed manuscripts were determined using MEDLINE for the years 1985 to 1990 under the surname of the presenting author. The contents of the abstracts were compared with those of the resultant manuscripts. The proportions of abstracts from each of the four societies that were published as manuscripts were compared. We found that the mean proportion of abstracts from all four societies that were published as manuscripts within three years of presentation was 44% and within five years 50%. The proportions of abstracts that were published as manuscripts from the four societies were similar. Of the abstracts that were published as manuscripts, 13% from the ASA, 16% from the IARS, 16% from the ARS and 0% from the CAS were published four or five years after abstract presentation. Although the overall proportion of abstracts that was published within five years of presentation did not differ from the rate of publication within three years, we recommend that a uniform policy with respect to the time interval for citation of abstracts be adopted for all anaesthesia journals. Research abstracts are frequently referenced in orthopaedic textbooks and influence orthopaedic care. However, little is known about the quality of information provided in the abstracts, the frequency of publication of complete papers after presentation of abstracts, or any discrepancies between abstracts and published papers. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of information provided in orthopaedic abstracts, rates of publication of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts, predictors of publication of full-text articles, and consistency between abstracts and full-text articles.
                We retrieved all abstracts from the 1996 scientific program of the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. For each abstract, we recorded the completeness of reporting and key features of the study design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. A computerized Medline and PubMed search established whether the abstract had been followed by publication of a full-text article. Finally, we evaluated the consistency of reporting between abstracts and final publications.
                The program included 465 abstracts, 66% of which were on prognostic studies. All abstracts described the study design, and 70.7% of the designs were observational. Key methodological issues were reported in less than half of the abstracts, and information on data analysis was reported in <15%. One hundred and fifty-nine (34%) of the 465 abstracts were followed by publication of a full-text article. The mean time to publication (and standard deviation) was 17.6 +/- 12 months (range, one to fifty-six months). Inconsistencies between the abstract and the full-text article included the primary outcome measure, which differed 14% of the time, and the results, which differed 19% of the time.
                Two-thirds of the orthopaedic abstracts in this sample were not followed by publication of a full-text paper. The overall quality of reporting in abstracts proved inadequate, and inconsistencies between the final published paper and the original abstract occurred frequently. The routine use of abstracts as a guide to orthopaedic practice needs to be reconsidered. The aim of this study was to examine the determinants of publication and whether publication bias occurred in gastroenterological research.
                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.
                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.
                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. Meetings are an important way of exchanging scientific information, but full diffusion of new information can only be achieved when results are published in scientific journals.
                (1) To determine the publication frequency of accepted abstracts for the yearly international conferences on pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE) and to examine predicting variables; (2) if published, to determine impact differences between 'oral' and 'poster' abstracts and to determine type and nature of publishing journals.
                Abstracts accepted for ICPE 1995-1999, published in the official conference supplement of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, were included. Publication status for the information contained in each abstract was evaluated through MEDLINE and IPA searches. Impact factors of publishing journals were retrieved and journals were included in one of five groups.
                Overall, one out of three abstracts resulted in a publication in the peer-reviewed journals studied. Abstracts from North America were more often presented orally than abstracts from Europe, but had lower publication chances. 'Oral' abstracts were more likely to be published than 'poster' abstracts; abstracts with a strong methodological content had a lower publication frequency. Most of the published abstracts were found in pharmacology and pharmacy journals (33%) and journals on specific clinical topics (30%).
                Only one out of three papers presented at ICPE ends up in established peer-reviewed journals. Although the publication characteristics for ICPE are not very different from other conferences, there are certain questions that warrant further investigation. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the ultimate lasting acknowledgment of an author's research results. Numerous clinical and basic-science papers are presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, but not all of these presentations culminate in publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In an effort to determine the percentages and patterns of publication, every presentation from the 1990, 1991, and 1992 meetings (a total of 1465 presentations) was reviewed with use of a Melvyl Medline Plus computer search during the summer of 1996. The presentations were classified on the basis of subspecialty. The over-all rate of publication by August 1996 was 46 per cent (668 of 1465), and the rates were similar for the 1990, 1991, and 1992 meetings. The average time to publication was twenty months, and most publications appeared within three years after presentation, with a plateau thereafter. Basic-science presentations had the highest rate of publication: 64 per cent (eighteen of twenty-eight presentations). The rates of publication by clinical subspecialty ranged from 39 per cent (twenty-eight of seventy-two presentations in the hand subspecialty and eighty-two of 210 presentations in the trauma subspecialty) to 53 per cent (110 of 206 presentations in the spine subspecialty). There was no significant difference among these groups (p = 0.611, chi-square test). The American volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery published the most papers (24 per cent; 161 of the 668 publications), followed by Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (16 per cent; 106 of 668). The over-all rate of publication of presentations at the Annual Meeting of The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is comparable with reported rates in other medical specialties. Of 55 abstracts presented at the 1979 annual meeting of the International Anesthesia Research Society (I.A.R.S.) 24 (43.6%) and of 62 abstracts presented at the 1980 annual meeting of the I.A.R.S. 25 (40.3%) were published by July 1, 1981. Of 324 abstracts presented at the 1978 annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (A.S.A.) 98 papers (30.1%) were published by January 1, 1981. Eighty-two percent of the I.A.R.S. meeting papers and 66.7% of the A.S.A. papers were published in anesthesia journals, and the rest of the papers appeared in publications representing a variety of other disciplines. The average lag time between publication of the abstract and publication as an article was 8.2 months for I.A.R.S. abstracts and 12.2 months for A.S.A. abstracts. By July 1, 1981, four 1979 I.A.R.S. abstracts were filed in Science Citation Index (SCI) as cited reference and by January 1, 1981, fifty-six 1979 A.S.A. abstracts were filed. Large clinical trials are the criterion standard for making treatment decisions, and nonpublication of the results of such trials can lead to bias in the literature and contribute to inappropriate medical decisions.
                To determine the rate of full publication of large randomized trials presented at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), quantify bias against publishing nonsignificant results, and identify factors associated with time to publication.
                Survey of 510 abstracts from large (sample size, > or =200), phase 3, randomized controlled trials presented at ASCO meetings between 1989 and 1998. Trial results were classified as significant (P< or =.05 for the primary outcome measure) or nonsignificant (P>.05 or not reported), and the type of presentation and sponsorship were identified. Subsequent full publication was identified using a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, completed November 1, 2001; the search was updated in November 2002, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Authors were contacted if the searches did not find evidence of publication.
                Publication rate at 5 years; time from presentation to full publication.
                Of 510 randomized trials, 26% were not published in full within 5 years after presentation at the meeting. Eighty-one percent of the studies with significant results had been published by this time compared with 68% of the studies with nonsignificant results (P<.001). Studies with oral or plenary presentation were published sooner than those not presented (P =.002), and studies with pharmaceutical sponsorship were published sooner than studies with cooperative group sponsorship or studies for which sponsorship was not specified (P =.02). These factors remained significant in a multivariable model. The most frequent reason cited by authors for not publishing was lack of time, funds, or other resources.
                A substantial number of large phase 3 trials presented at an international oncology meeting remain unpublished 5 years after presentation. Bias against publishing nonsignificant results is a problem even for large randomized trials. Nonpublication breaks the contract that investigators make with trial participants, funding agencies, and ethics boards. A review of all the presentations at three major spine specialty meetings held over a 3-year period.
                To determine the rate of publication in peer-reviewed journals after presentations at major spine meetings conducted annually by the following three organizations: North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), and International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS).
                The rate of publication for presentations at national and international meetings has been determined for medical and surgical subspecialties. This rate has been used to judge the quality of the content of the meetings and to determine the validity of the research presentations.
                All presentations either in poster or oral presentation form were entered into a database covering a 3-year period for spine specialty meetings conducted annually by the following three organizations: NASS 1990 to 1992, SRS 1991 to 1993, and ISSLS 1991 to 1993. A computer search for each abstract was performed with the Melvyl Medline Plus database to determine if the abstract had been published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1990 to the end of 1997. Publication rates for presentations at these three meetings were determined over a 3-year period.
                A total of 1186 abstracts were listed over a 3-year period in the final programs of these three meetings for the years 1991 to 1993 (SRS, ISSLS) and 1990 to 1992 (NASS). Of these 1186 abstracts, 516 were published in peer-reviewed journals, giving an overall publication rate of 43.5%. The publication rates for the three different meetings (NASS, SRS, ISSLS) were similar, with values of 40%, 47%, and 45% respectively. More than 90% of the publications resulting from these meetings were published within a period of 4 years from the data of the meeting.
                The publication rates of presentations at three major spine specialty meetings are high and quite comparable with the publication rates of meetings in other medical subspecialties. This reflects the high quality of the meeting programs and validates their selection process. The adequacy of research presented in abstract form for presentation at scientific meetings remains a concern, as indicated by the proportion of such research appearing in scientific journals after peer review. This report examines the publication of research presented at the pediatrics meetings and the effect of a change in selection procedure for abstracts presented at the Ambulatory Pediatric Association meetings for the years 1979 and 1980. Throughout the period, about half of the presentations were published, usually in general pediatric journals, with an average time to publication of about 20 months. The change in selection procedure resulted in little change in the proportion published among either presentations or abstracts submitted but not selected for presentation, but it did lead to a reduction in time to publication. This experience suggests a mechanism for enhancing the timeliness of publication of research presented at scientific meetings without adversely affecting the process of selection. nan nan The aims of the present study were to determine the publication rate of abstracts presented by Australasian emergency physicians at major emergency medicine meetings and to identify the site of publication of papers.
                All free paper abstracts presented (oral and poster) by Australasian emergency physicians and trainees at five Australasian College for Emergency Medicine/Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine and International Conference on Emergency Medicine meetings between 1995 and 1998 were identified retrospectively from conference programmes. In order to determine whether or not the abstract had been published, the PubMed database (http://www4.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/) was searched using the presenter's name and key words from the abstract. In addition, a hand search of the non-abstracted journal Emergency Medicine was conducted.
                Of the 207 free paper abstracts identified, 73 (35%) had been published as full articles. Papers were published in a variety of journals; however, Emergency Medicine accounted for almost half the published papers. The mean time between presentation and publication was 12.6 months (median 11 months).
                The abstract to publication rate for papers presented by Australasian emergency physicians and trainees at Australasian College for Emergency Medicine/Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine and International Conference on Emergency Medicine meetings is 35%, which is lower than that reported by some other established specialities, but comparable to rates reported for US-based national and international emergency medicine meetings. Future research should look at barriers to the publication of findings and ways to assist the publication process. Our aim was to determine the fate of mandatory resident research projects with regard to subsequent presentation and publication.
                In this retrospective descriptive study required research projects were assessed for frequency of presentation at regional and national meetings or publication in medical journals, or both, over a 10-year period (1983 through 1992). Rising second-year house officers elected to initiate their own study with departmental support under the guidance of a faculty advisor or selected a research project from a list of potential investigations offered by departmental faculty. Projects were presented at the annual alumni meeting in April of the junior and senior years. The faculty advisor assisted in research design, protocol development, obtaining human investigation committee approval, data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, and coaching for the oral presentation. After local presentation these projects were evaluated for submission to regional and national meetings and prepared for peer-review publication.
                During a 10-year period 104 resident research projects resulted in 72 regional or national presentations and 52 peer-review publications. There was a significant increase in the proportion of projects presented at national meetings over time (r = 0.99; p < 0.0001). There was also an increase in the number of projects published in peer-review journals during the decade-long study period (r = 0.96, p = 0.0001).
                Required completion of two research studies during residency bolstered by early selection of prospective projects and departmental fiscal support, as well as intensive faculty advisor direction and assistance, has resulted in resident projects with increasingly frequent national recognition. To evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented during the German Anaesthesia Congress (DAK) in MEDLINE-listed journals in comparison to the publication rate of abstracts presented during the meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists (ESA).
                All abstracts of free papers (FP, orals) and posters of the 1994 DAK and the 1994 ESA meeting were included. Over a period of approximately 7 years (1993 to May 1999) the appearance of authors and abstracts topics in the literature were searched with the help of MEDLINE. Only original papers were included in the analysis.
                All 322 abstracts (268 FPs and 54 posters) of the DAK and all 244 abstracts (81 FP and 163 posters) of the ESA were analyzed. A total 122 of the DAK abstracts (37.9% of all abstracts) and 111 of the ESA abstracts (45.5% of all abstracts) were published in MEDLINE-listed journals. Posters presented at the DAK were as published often (37%) as were oral presentations (38%). Of the 122 abstracts of the DAK that were published 71 (58.2%) were published in English (in 38 different journals) and 51 (41.8%) were published in German (in 8 different journals), whereas 102 (92%) of the ESA abstracts were published in english (in 42 different journals).
                The overall portion of abstracts of the DAK published in MEDLINE indexed journals within 7 years was disappointing. The reasons for this may include deliberate avoidance of a publication (e.g. due to lack of interest to publish, no time) or low quality of the abstract that hinders publication in a MEDLINE indexed journal. A computerized MEDLINE search was performed to determine the publication pattern of the abstracts submitted for podium presentation at the 1991-1994 annual meetings of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA). The publication percentage for all papers submitted to the POSNA meetings from 1991 through 1994 was 45%. Fifty-three percent of papers accepted for podium presentation were ultimately published in comparison with 38% of those not accepted for presentation (p < 0.001). The mean time to publication was 29 months and did not differ significantly for the two groups. The majority of papers (65%) were published in either Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (48%) or The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) (17%). The frequency of ultimate publication of abstracts submitted to the annual POSNA meetings compares favorably with the rates for other medical subspecialties. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are accepted as the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of clinical interventions but are rarely reported in pediatric surgery. Have RCTs submitted to the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) Annual Congress during the last 5 years been adequately designed and large enough to produce a valid result?
                Abstracts accepted by the Annual BAPS Congress meetings between 1996 and 2000 were examined in collaboration with a senior health services researcher. The quality of the design, methodology, statistical analysis and conclusions, and the adequacy of the sample size were assessed for all identifiable clinical RCTs.
                From 760 accepted abstracts, there were only 9 RCTs (1%) of clinical interventions. In only 4 trials was the relevant primary end-point specified at the outset of the study, and none documented the method of randomization. Only one abstract mentioned blinding with respect to the intervention or outcome measure. Sample sizes were inadequate to detect even large clinical differences. To date, only one of these RCTs has been published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal.
                Clear guidelines exist for the conduct of RCTs, yet compliance with these standards was rarely documented in abstracts of pediatric surgical RCTs presented at BAPS. Sample sizes were inadequate. RCTs in pediatric surgery are difficult to perform, but the specialty would benefit from well-designed, carefully conducted, multicentre, clinical RCTs to advance evidence-based practice.
                Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. To determine the publication rate of the scientific papers presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) meetings from 1990 to 1995 inclusive.
                A Medline search was performed on abstracts presented at the OTA sessions from 1990 through 1995 using both authors and key text words within the OTA abstract. The publication rate for each meeting, journal of publication, and time to publication were tabulated.
                The publication rate for papers presented at the OTA meetings from 1990 through 1994 was 64 percent. This was significantly better than publication rates reported for American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meetings in 1990 through 1992. The average time to publication was sixteen months. The most common journals in which papers derived from the OTA abstracts were published include the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery combined volumes (JBJS). and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR).
                OTA meetings are an excellent source of high-quality information, which is generally subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. The Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is the single best source for information presented at the OTA meetings. Allowing more papers to be presented did not affect the publication rate for the meetings. This retrospective review of the 1990 ABA orally presented abstracts found an overall publication rate of slightly more than 26%. This included both same-content and related-content publications. When the abstracts were made a subset by theme, a major variance in the publication rates was found. Abstracts that had a psychologic content (72.73%), for example, fared much better than reports of in vitro research (6.9%). This overall rate when compared to publication studies in other clinical areas was found to be quite low. This study further found that there was a great deal of similarity between abstracts that were published and those that were not. The one meaningful predictor of ultimate journal publication was the clarity of the presentation of statistically related information.
Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.