Educational article: what gets accepted for presentation?—A study of submitted abstracts for the 2009 BAOMS Conference

Stewart, Samantha; Oeppen, R.S.; Cascarini, Luke; Brennan, Peter A.

doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.12.008

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Oral presentations score the highest number of points in the ‘presentations’ section of 2020 CST portfolio (6 out of a possible 72). 24 Stewart et al 31 identified that most trainees struggle to obtain oral presentations. However, as a result of CAPS programme, four out of six students who presented their work secured an oral presentation within 9 months.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Audit Platform for Students (CAPS): a pilot study

Kumar

Hashmi

Morad

et al. 2020

Postgraduate Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA clinical audit measures specific clinical outcomes or processes against a predefined standard. However, many clinicians are unable to carry out audits given their time constraints. Alternatively, medical students may often wish to complete audits early in their career to strengthen their portfolios. As such, the student clinical audit platform was designed to connect willing supervisors and these medical students.MethodsProject supervisors were members of a regional trainee-led network. Interested students were familiarised with the various aspects of an audit and allocated to supervisors with similar interests. There was regular communication to track progress and anonymised feedback forms were distributed to all students and supervisors after a year.ResultsA total of 17 responses were received from the 19 students who were involved in a project. Based on a 5-point Likert scale, students displayed a mean improvement in their understanding of a clinical audit (1.18±1.07, p<0.001), the confidence to approach a supervisor (1.29±1.21, p<0.001) and the ability to conduct an audit by themselves in the future (1.77±1.15, p<0.001). Of the seven affiliated supervisors, five provided feedback with 80% indicating they had projects which remained inactive and all happy with the quality of work produced by their students.ConclusionDespite limitations to this programme, the platform produced projects which were disseminated both locally and nationally, demonstrating positive collaboration between medical students and clinicians. We present our findings and evaluations to encourage similar audit platforms to be adopted at other locations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Audit Platform for Students (CAPS): a pilot study

Kumar

Hashmi

Morad

et al. 2020

Postgraduate Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some societies have restricted the amount of work accepted to require higher standards for abstracts presented at meetings to increase competition among participants. This increases the chance of an abstract being published as full text 8 , 9 , 13 , 21 , 22 . On the other hand, a lot of young trainees are involved in scientific meetings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fate of abstracts presented at the Turkish Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (TAOMS) meetings between 2007 and 2009

Yolcu

Kucuk

2018

J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the rate of peer-reviewed publication of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Turkish Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (TAOMS) and to identify the time to publication, subspecialty, and study design.Materials and MethodsAll abstracts accepted for presentation at a TAOMS meeting between 2007 and 2009 were identified from a book of abstracts and were searched for publication using PubMed and Google Scholar. The following variables were evaluated: publication rate, type of presentation (oral or poster), time to publication, subspecialty, study design, and name of the journal in which the article was published.ResultsA total of 478 abstracts were presented at the TAOMS meetings between 2007 and 2009. Of these, 140 abstracts (29.3%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, including 38.2% of oral presentations and 26.6% of poster presentations. The mean time from presentation to publication was 22 months. Regarding publication fields, research and emerging technologies presentations had the highest publication rate (100%). With regard to study type, animal study (70.0%) and basic research (55.0%) had the highest publication rates.ConclusionOnly 29.3% of abstracts presented at the TAOMS meeting were subsequently published as full-text articles. This rate was found to be similar to the previously reported publication rates in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

show abstract

“…To our knowledge, only one study analyzed abstracts submitted to a dental conference [46], and unfortunately it did not look at the significance of abstract results. Further research regarding the publication fate of dental studies in earlier phases of research dissemination (e.g.…”

Section: Significance Of Research Findings (Publication Bias)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Thirty percent of abstracts presented at dental conferences are published in full: a systematic review

Hua

Walsh

Glenny

et al. 2016

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To review the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences, and investigate the association between full publication rate (FPR) and abstract characteristics, conference characteristics, and methodological quality of primary studies.Study Design and Setting: PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched from inception to November 2014 for studies that reported at least one FPR of abstracts presented at dental conferences, with a follow-up length of no less than 48 months. were not published more often than negative or nonsignificant abstracts, respectively. In multivariable meta-regression analysis, conferences held in Asia (P<0.001) and at a continental rather than national level (P<0.001) were significantly associated with higher FPR. Conclusions:Less than one third of abstracts presented at dental conferences were published in full, more than 4 years after the presentation.Keywords: Meeting abstracts; Publication bias; Publishing; Dentistry; Posters; Meta-analysis Running title: Publication fate of dental conference abstractsWhat is new? Key findingsl Less than one third of abstracts presented at dental conferences were published in full, more than 4 years after the conferences.l Abstracts presented orally, with statistical analyses, about basic science research, and those reported funding were significantly more likely to be published.l No evidence of publication bias was found at this stage of research dissemination.l The location and level of conferences were significantly associated with full publication. What this adds to what was known?l This study systematically reviewed all primary studies regarding the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences and, by using multivariable meta-regression, provided insight into the roles of conference characteristics and methodological quality (of primary studies) as predictors of full publication.l It adds to the body of evidence that many conference abstracts are never published in full. What is the implication and what should change now?l When analyzing predictors of full publication, future research regarding the publication fate of conference abstracts should control for the level and location of conferences. / 22

show abstract

Educational article: what gets accepted for presentation?—A study of submitted abstracts for the 2009 BAOMS Conference

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

Clinical Audit Platform for Students (CAPS): a pilot study

Clinical Audit Platform for Students (CAPS): a pilot study

Fate of abstracts presented at the Turkish Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (TAOMS) meetings between 2007 and 2009

Thirty percent of abstracts presented at dental conferences are published in full: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About