Differences Between ADEA Annual Session Poster Abstracts and Their Corresponding Full Published Articles

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences between abstracts of posters presented at the 79 th (2002) and 80 th (2003) Annual Session & Exhibition of the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) and the published full-length articles resulting from the same studies. The abstracts for poster presentation sessions were downloaded, and basic characteristics of the abstracts and their authors were determined. A PubMed search was then performed to identify the publication of full-length articles based on those abstracts in a peer-reviewed journal. The differences between the abstract and the article were examined and categorized as major and minor differences. Differences identified included authorship, title, materials and methods, results, conclusions, and funding. Data were analyzed with both descriptive and analytic statistics. Overall, 89 percent of the abstracts had at least one variation from its corresponding article, and 65 percent and 76 percent of the abstracts had at least one major and minor variation, respectively, from its corresponding article.

Abstracts presented at the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) Congresses‐ Publication fate and discrepancies with full‐length articles

“…In this study, at least one type of change occurred in 95.1% pairs. Although slight differences in discrepancy categories existed across studies, our findings were similar with previous studies on dental conferences, which reported 95.6% (Prasad et al, 2012) and 89% (Yuan et al, 2011) discrepancies, respectively.…”

Discrepancies of Abstracts Presented in Coloproctology Congresses and Later Publish as Full Manuscripts. A Brazilian Perspective

“…Although we have categorized the discrepancies into minor and major, based on previously adopted criteria 4,13,28,29 we cannot provide substantial comments on the impact of the above differences in scientific inference and/or decision-making for surgical physicians and coloproctologists. Since we could only compare published manuscripts with meeting abstracts presentations, the discrepancy rate is potentially higher when considering the rate of non-publication of coloproctology meeting abstracts.…”

“…However, there could be inconsistencies in complete manuscripts in journals, which results in a limiting factor of the applicability of new discoveries and knowledge shared with the academic world and also with professionals who could not attend the congress. 3,4 Thus, the objective of this descriptive study was, based on the compilation of bibliometric data from the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology from 2015 to 2019, to evaluate discrepancies between the work presented at the congress and its subsequent scientific publication. No similar study regarding differences in abstracts presented at coloproctology conferences and subsequently published as full manuscripts were found in the literature.…”

“…However, there could be inconsistencies in complete manuscripts in journals, which results in a limiting factor of the applicability of new discoveries and knowledge shared with the academic world and also with professionals who could not attend the congress. 3 4…”