Biomedical conferences’ author instructions rarely mention guidelines for reporting abstracts of trials and systematic reviews

Šarić, Lenko; Došenović, Svjetlana; Mihanović, Jakov; Puljak, Livia

doi:10.2217/cer-2019-0158

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Still, 2020 instructions for authors of the ASA, ESA, and IARS conference proceedings do not mention any reporting guideline, in contrast to the journals Anesthesiology, European Journal of Anaesthesiology, and Anesthesia & Analgesia [26][27][28][29][30][31]. Only two of 819 instructions for abstracts on conferences had reporting instructions for RCT or systematic review authors [32]. Studies on implementation of CONSORT in journals have shown a potential positive influence on reporting [33,34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic reviews attempt to gather all available evidence. Controversy exists regarding effort and benefit of including study results presented at conferences only. We recently published a Cochrane network meta-analysis (NMA) including 585 randomized controlled trials comparing drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Studies published as conference abstracts only were excluded. This study aimed to include all eligible studies published as abstracts only, assessing their added value regarding reporting quality and effect on the review’s interpretation. Methods Conference abstracts were searched in the review’s excluded studies and conference proceedings of anaesthesiologic societies. We assessed their reporting quality regarding review’s eligibility criteria, Cochrane ‘risk of bias’ assessment tool 1.0, and adherence to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for abstracts. Abstracts were included in sensitivity NMA, and impact on the NMA structure was investigated. Results We identified 90 abstracts. A total of 14% (13/90) were eligible. A total of 86% (77/90) are awaiting classification due to insufficient reporting of review’s eligibility criteria. In abstracts awaiting classification, sufficient information was missing on standardization of anaesthesia in 71% (55/77), age of participants in 56% (43/77), and outcome details in 46% (36/77). A total of 73% (66/90) of abstracts lacked sufficient information on 15/25 data extraction items. Reported study characteristics of abstracts were comparable to included studies of the review. A total of 62% (56/90) of abstract trials were assessed as overall high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Median adherence to CONSORT for abstracts was 24% (IQR, 18 to 29%). Six of the 13 eligible abstracts reported relevant outcome data in sufficient detail for NMA on seven outcomes of the Cochrane review. Inclusion of abstracts did not substantially change the network structure, network effect estimates, ranking of treatments, or the conclusion. Certainty of evidence for headache on palonosetron use was upgraded from very low to low. Conclusions Most conference abstracts on PONV were insufficiently reported regarding review’s narrow inclusion criteria and could not be included in NMA. The resource-intensive search and evaluation of abstracts did not substantially extent the full-text evidence base of the review, given the few adequately reported abstracts. Conferences should oblige authors to adhere to CONSORT for abstracts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for Abstracts, which was originally published in 2013 to foster transparent reporting of systematic review abstracts [10], was updated in 2020 [11]. It has been shown that uptake of these reporting guidelines may not have been optimal [12][13][14], but this will hopefully improve.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frequency and characteristics of promissory conference abstracts, i.e. abstracts without results, accepted at Cochrane Colloquia 1994-2020

Novak

Puljak

2021

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The purpose of a conference abstract is to summarize the main points of a research-related report that will be presented at an academic conference. However, some conferences accept and publish abstracts without results, which is contrary to the basic idea of a conference abstract as a dissemination tool. A conference abstract without results included is called a “promissory abstract”. This study aimed to analyze the frequency and characteristics of promissory conference abstracts, i.e. abstracts submitted without results, accepted at Cochrane Colloquia. Methods We analyzed 8297 conference abstracts accepted at 25 Cochrane Colloquia, organized in 1994–2020, which were publicly available on the website of the Cochrane Library. Two authors screened abstracts to identify promissory abstracts. We extracted characteristics of promissory abstracts. Results Among abstracts accepted for Cochrane Colloquia, 8.7% were promissory; 475 (66%) were accepted as poster presentations, 241 (34%) as oral presentations and 1 as a workshop. The median number of authors in promissory abstracts was 4 (interquartile range: 3 to 6 authors). In 245 (34%) promissory abstracts, affiliations of authors were not reported. The authors were most commonly affiliated with the following countries: UK (472; 36%), Canada (N = 123; 26%), China (N = 76; 16%), United States (N = 66; 14%) and Australia (N = 53; 11%). There were 512 (71%) promissory abstracts in which study design was not reported. Conclusion Promissory abstracts were commonly accepted at Cochrane Colloquia. Such abstracts deserve further attention, as they are detrimental in terms of the dissemination of new knowledge presented at a conference. Conference organizers could ask authors to update the abstract results subsequently to enable the dissemination of information presented at a conference.

show abstract

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study

Rehlicki,

Plenkovic,

Delac

et al. 2024

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomedical conferences’ author instructions rarely mention guidelines for reporting abstracts of trials and systematic reviews

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials

Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials

Frequency and characteristics of promissory conference abstracts, i.e. abstracts without results, accepted at Cochrane Colloquia 1994-2020

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About