Factors Associated With the Full Publication of Studies Presented in Abstract Form at the Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association

Smith, William A.; Cancel, Quinton V.; Tseng, Timothy Y.; Sultan, Shahnaz; Vieweg, Johannes; Dahm, Philipp

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.029

Cited by 52 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This rate is comparable with that of other medical The outcome of abstracts presented at the USCAP J Song et al societies with published reports, which typically range from 30 to 50%. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The variation in reported rates may be partly due to different follow-up times, because some studies included publications as far as 5 years after abstract presentation. In a large-scale study, von Elm et al 1 analyzed 19 123 abstracts presented in 234 biomedical meetings from 1957 to 1998, and found the overall publication rates after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years to be 12, 27, 37, 41, and 44% respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is in contrast to some other studies that showed a more favorable outcome of abstracts with US origin. 1,6 Pathology studies involving diagnostic and prognostic markers frequently require statistical analysis. Our data showed that abstracts explicitly mentioning statistical methods had approximately the same publication rate as did those that did not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2,6 It is not uncommon to have a delay of several months between the acceptance and the publication of an article, although the use of electronic publication system has ameliorated this problem to some extent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The outcome of abstracts presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meetings

Song

Hwang

et al. 2010

Modern Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many abstracts presented at scientific meetings are never published as articles in peer-reviewed journals. Using PubMed search and custom computer programs, we retrospectively reviewed all 4824 abstracts presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meetings from 2005 to 2007, and found an overall publication rate of 36% for a 3-year maximal follow-up. This rate is comparable with that of other medical societies with published data. The publication rate varied from 10 to 62% among different subspecialties. The format of presentation, either platform or poster, was also a significant predictor of outcome, with 42-50% publication rate for platform abstracts and 32-36% for poster abstracts. Country of origin and the use of statistical methods did not seem to affect outcome significantly. The average time from abstract submission to article publication was 18 months. Seven journals accounted for over half of all publications, and the top three journals were American Journal of Surgical Pathology Keywords: abstracts; outcome; publication rate; USCAP The scientific abstract program of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) annual meeting is an important forum for sharing recent advances in pathology, publishing more than 1500 abstracts each year. Abstracts are a valuable source of information; however, articles in peerreviewed journals undergo more scrutiny and are easier to access through PubMed and other citation indices. Numerous studies presented as abstracts at scientific meetings are never published in peerreviewed journals.1 There are many drawbacks associated with this phenomenon. Abstracts that are not subsequently published as articles may not reach their maximal potential readership, limiting their benefits to the medical community and potentially causing duplicated studies. Abstracts may lack details in the description of materials and methods, making it difficult for other researchers to reproduce and validate the results. Knowing the final outcome of meeting abstracts is therefore of interest to not only attendees but also meeting organizers, as it could serve as a quality assurance measure for their abstract selection process.We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of abstracts presented at the USCAP annual meetings in recent years. The rate of publication in peerreviewed journals was determined. We also analyzed several factors that may correlate with the outcome, including the subspecialty, presentation format, country of origin, and the use of statistical methods. Materials and methodsAll USCAP abstracts presented at the 2005 (1576), 2006 (1588), and 2007 (1660) annual meetings were retrieved from the corresponding Modern Pathology supplemental issues at the journal's website. These abstracts were compiled in PDF files by subspecialty. We developed a PERL computer program that automatically parsed these PDF files and extracted each abstract by the following fields: identifier, title, authors, institutions, and main text. These data fields were outputted...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The outcome of abstracts presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meetings

Song

Hwang

et al. 2010

Modern Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The publication rate for the first ICNU was lower than those for international relevant congresses held by the American urological association (AUA, 37.8% -55.0%) (6,8,10), European association of urology (EAU, 47.3%) (11), British association of urological surgeons (BAUS, 31.6%) (11), and ICS Meeting (61.6%) (12). Also, the publication rate of the abstracts of three annual nephrology meetings (American society of nephrology (ASN), National kidney foundation (NKF), and European renal association (ERA)) was 42% (13), which was higher than the rate found in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the First International Congress of Nephrology and Urology, Tehran, Iran, 2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The publication rate of abstracts presented at a scientific congress is considered as an indicator of congress's scientific quality. This rate is in range of 11% to 78% with an average of 45% in international medical congresses. The current survey aimed to determine the publication rate of the presented abstracts at the first international congress of nephrology and urology (ICNU) in 2015. Methods: Data of oral and poster presentations including abstracts' titles and authors were gathered from the proceeding of the first ICNU, Tehran, Iran, 2015. The presented abstracts were searched in Scopus, PubMed, and ISC (for Persian language published papers). All the abstracts were categorized based on presentation type (oral or poster presentation), topic, study type and design, publication status, time interval between the presentation and the publication date, and the journal publishing the full text of the abstracts. Statistical analysis was done by SPSS (version 18, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results: The total number of abstracts accepted at the first ICNU was 210 (63 as oral and 147 as poster). The results showed that 49 out of 210 abstracts were published as full-text articles in indexed journals, giving the overall publication rate of 23.3%. 6 out of 49 published papers were in Persian Language. In this survey, the rate of publication was 41.3% for oral presentations. The abstracts of prospective studies and original articles were more likely to be published in journals. The median time to publication was 5.3 months (range 1 -12 months). Conclusions: Novel ideas and innovative approaches were discussed at the first ICNU, Tehran, Iran, 2015. The 23.3% publication rate found in the current study was lower than the mean publication rate of previous medical congresses. If the presented abstracts in a congress are not published as papers to be available to all, it would be waste of effort and time.

show abstract

“…Similar publication rates ranging from 30% to 50% have been observed in other clinical disciplines, including anesthesiology, pediatrics, otolaryngology, and urology. [6][7][8][9] In this context, we are encouraged by our observation that at least 56% of abstracts for projects supported by the Anatomic Pathology Research Fund have led to publication. It is tempting to speculate based on our early experience with this funding mechanism that the relatively higher publication rate of our abstracts is related to improvements in the scientific design, merit, and rigor of the funded projects afforded by the evaluation process.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Funding Anatomic Pathology Research: A Retrospective Analysis of an Intramural Funding Mechanism

McDaniel

Fullen

Cho

et al. 2013

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context.-In 2006, the department of pathology at our institution established an intramural research funding mechanism to support anatomic pathology research projects for faculty and trainee development. A review committee consisting of faculty members with diverse academic interests evaluated applications; proposals were eligible for a maximum award amount of $30 000 per project with a maximum program cost of $150 000 annually.Objective.-To report our experience based on a retrospective review of the research proposals submitted to the committee since the inception of the Anatomic Pathology Research Fund and evaluate the outcomes of the funded projects.Design.-We retrospectively analyzed all project applications that were received by the committee. Outcome data were collected by reviewing progress reports, abstracts for national and international meetings, PubMed search results, and/or direct communication with investigators.Results.-To date, a total of 59 individual projects have been awarded funding, for a total amount of $349 792, with an average award amount of $5381 per project. A total of 26 faculty members have secured funding for projects through this mechanism, and 27 resident and fellow trainees have been engaged in the funded projects. Spanning 11 subspecialty disciplines in anatomic pathology, 32 abstracts (54%) have been presented at national meetings and 26 (44%) have been published in the peerreviewed literature to date. One project generated data used to secure an extramural (R01) grant.Conclusions.-Our funding mechanism could serve as a model used by other academic departments to support research activities, thereby fostering faculty development through scholarly activities. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:1270-1273 doi: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0546-OA) A cademic pathology represents a unique specialty in medicine owing to the diversity of academic and scholarly activities that can be performed.1 Research in anatomic pathology represents a proportion of scholarly work produced by pathology departments and consists of a diverse array of projects in multiple subspecialties, including but not limited to autopsy, bone and soft tissue pathology, breast pathology, cytopathology, dermatopathology, endocrine pathology, gastrointestinal pathology, genitourinary pathology, gynecologic pathology, renal pathology, neuropathology, and pediatric pathology. Unfunded research appears to account for the vast majority of pathology research activity.2 Specifically, Borkowski and colleagues 2 observed that of 295 publications for which the principal author was a member of a pathology department, only 47 acknowledged competitive grant support. Deficits in intramural and extramural funding can be significant barriers to scholarly activity. Furthermore, lack of funding for research projects could represent an obstacle to recruiting academically oriented young physicians to junior faculty positions in academic departments.3 Therefore, in 2005, the senior leadership of the department of pathology at our institution initiat...

show abstract

Factors Associated With the Full Publication of Studies Presented in Abstract Form at the Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association

Cited by 52 publications

References 16 publications

The outcome of abstracts presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meetings

The outcome of abstracts presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meetings

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the First International Congress of Nephrology and Urology, Tehran, Iran, 2015

Funding Anatomic Pathology Research: A Retrospective Analysis of an Intramural Funding Mechanism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About