Factors influencing publication of abstracts presented at the AAO‐HNS Annual Meeting

Peng, Phyllis; Wasserman, Jared M.; Rosenfeld, Richard M.

doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2006.04.006

Cited by 58 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[16] Other possible reasons included the presence of previous studies with similar study designs and results, preconceived judgement about the rejection by the journals, study results not providing new scientific contributions, and presence of deficits and errors in statistical methodology. [8,17] Although some studies did not find any significant difference between the publication rates of oral and poster presentations, [17][18][19][20] others showed that the publication rate of oral presentations was higher than poster presentations. [8,21,22] In general, well-designed studies with interesting results which have a higher scientific value are selected as oral presentations by the review committee of the abstracts, and these reports mature further with the feedbacks from the audience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What fate befalls the congress proceedings? Conversion rates of National Thoracic Surgery Congress proceedings into international publications

Evman¹

2017

Turk Gogus Kalp Dama

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZAmaç: Bu çalışmada, Ulusal Göğüs Cerrahisi Kongresi'nde sunulan bildirilerin takip eden dört yıl içinde bilimsel dergilerde yayına dönüştürülme oranları belirlendi ve Türkiye'de yayımlanan bu bildiri oranları ile ilişkili değişkenler incelendi. Çalışm a planı:PubMed veri tabanı kullanılarak, 2011 yılında VI. Ulusal Göğüs Cerrahisi Kongresi'nde sunulan ve uluslararası hakemli dergilerde ve Türk Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derneği ve Türk Göğüs Cerrahisi Derneği'nin resmi yayını Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi'nde yayımlanan yayınlar tespit edildi. Bildirinin türü, konu başlığı, birinci yazarın adı ve bağlı olduğu kurum, yayın süresi ve dergi adı geriye dönük olarak incelendi. Bul gu lar:Toplam 312 bildiriden 35'nin (%11.2) uluslararası hakemli dergilerde yayımlandığı bildirildi. Yirmi üç sözlü sunumun beşi (%21.7), 61 tartışmalı posterin 10'u (%16.3) ve 228 poster bildirisinin 20'si (%8.7) yayına dönüştürüldüğü görüldü. Sözel bildiriler, poster bildirilerine kıyasla daha fazla yayına dönüştürülmüştü; ancak istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p= 0.163). Kurum tipine göre en yüksek yayına dönüştürme oranı, üniversitelerden idi (%64.4); ancak üniversiteler, eğitim araştırma hastaneleri ve çok merkezli çalışmalar arasında kurum tipi açısından anlamlı bir fark yok idi (p= 0.581). Poster bildirilerin yayına dönüştürülme süresi, sözel bildirilere kıyasla, anlamlı düzeyde daha kısa idi (p= 0.005).Sonuç: Çalışma sonuçlarımız, kongre bildirilerinin hakemli dergilerde yayımlanma oranının %10 civarında olduğunu ve sözel bildirilerde ve üniversite kliniklerinde yapılan çalışmalarında bu oranın daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…[8,9] All data of the reports presented at the congress were obtained using the abstract book provided to the participants during the congress. All oral, poster discussions, and poster presentations accepted to the congress were included in the study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What fate befalls the congress proceedings? Conversion rates of National Thoracic Surgery Congress proceedings into international publications

Evman¹

2017

Turk Gogus Kalp Dama

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

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

“…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 influencing publication of abstracts presented at the AAO‐HNS Annual Meeting

Abstract: Our investigation is one of the first to critically analyze the factors in presentations at annual meetings that predict successful publication.

Cited by 58 publications

References 13 publications

What fate befalls the congress proceedings? Conversion rates of National Thoracic Surgery Congress proceedings into international publications

What fate befalls the congress proceedings? Conversion rates of National Thoracic Surgery Congress proceedings into international publications

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About