Peer Review in Publication: Factors Associated with the Full-Length Publication of Studies Presented in Abstract Form at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making

Greenberg, Dan; Wacht, Oren; Pliskin, Joseph S.

doi:10.1177/0272989x08327113

Cited by 26 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An overall quality score (range, 0-8) was calculated with quality categorized as low (0-2 scores), moderate (3)(4)(5) and high (6)(7)(8). These scores and categorizations were only used for subsequent meta-regressions and sensitivity analyses, not any weight-assignment of data synthesis.…”

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, conference abstracts are usually difficult to locate and access, present preliminary or partial results, lack details needed for critical appraisal, and have not undergone rigorous peer review. [4][5][6][7][8] Thus, full-length publications in peer-reviewed journals are commonly considered the expected outcome of conference presentations and endpoint of high-quality research. [1,9,10] In publication fate studies, full publication rate (FPR), the proportion of abstracts presented at certain conferences that have resulted in full publication, and its predictors have been widely used as indicators of the quality of conferences and presented research, as well as measures of potential publication bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1,9,10] In publication fate studies, full publication rate (FPR), the proportion of abstracts presented at certain conferences that have resulted in full publication, and its predictors have been widely used as indicators of the quality of conferences and presented research, as well as measures of potential publication bias. [6,11,12] Two systematic reviews conducted during 2001 to 2003 reported that the FPR of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences ranged from 8% to 81%, with a weighted mean value of 44.5%; several abstract characteristics (positive results, oral presentation, randomized trial study design, basic science research) and conference characteristics (held in US, smaller size) were found to be significantly associated with higher FPR in univariate analyses. [13,14] In recent years, there have been many studies investigating the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…Factors that have been shown to increase the likelihood of abstract publication include: oral presentation (as opposed to a poster), statistical analysis, number of authors, and university affiliation. [28][29][30][31] Time to publication is generally about 20 months. 29 …”

Section: After the Presentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing Abstracts and Developing Posters for National Meetings

Wood

2011

Journal of Palliative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presenting posters at national meetings can help fellows and junior faculty members develop a national reputation. They often lead to interesting and fruitful networking and collaboration opportunities. They also help with promotion in academic medicine and can reveal new job opportunities. Practically, presenting posters can help justify funding to attend a meeting. Finally, this process can be invaluable in assisting with manuscript preparation. This article provides suggestions and words of wisdom for palliative care fellows and junior faculty members wanting to present a poster at a national meeting describing a case study or original research. It outlines how to pick a topic, decide on collaborators, and choose a meeting for the submission. It also describes how to write the abstract using examples that present a general format as well as writing tips for each section. It then describes how to prepare the poster and do the presentation. Sample poster formats are provided as are talking points to help the reader productively interact with those that visit the poster. Finally, tips are given regarding what to do after the meeting. The article seeks to not only describe the basic steps of this entire process, but also to highlight the hidden curriculum behind the successful abstracts and posters. These tricks of the trade can help the submission stand out and will make sure the reader gets the most out of the hard work that goes into a poster presentation at a national meeting.

show abstract

“…1 Their results showed that, of 239 abstracts presented either as oral or poster presentations, 64 (27%) were ultimately published as full-length manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging the Success of Annual Scientific Meetings

Tsevat

2008

Med Decis Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, I asked a colleague who had just returned from his medical society's annual scientific meeting whether the meeting was a success. He countered by asking, ''How do you define success? '' As one dyed-in-the-wool decision scientist listening to another, I nodded in appreciation of his question, for success, at least as it pertains to annual meetings, is a multiattribute construct. For the attendee, success might be defined by new information, skills, and techniques attained, be they clinical, methodologic, or educational; by meeting people in one's field for the first time; by networking (or simply schmoozing) with old friends and colleagues; or perhaps by recruiting someone or by being recruited by someone. For the meeting organizing committee, success might be measured by meeting attendance and by how smoothly the meeting went. For the society's administration, certainly one aspect of a meeting's success is the revenue it generates toward offsetting the society's operating expenses.Yet for a scientific meeting such as the Society for Medical Decision Making's (SMDM's) annual meeting, the main measure of success, arguably, is the quality of the research presentations. How can one judge the quality of a research project, particularly when it is compressed into a 10-minute oral presentation or shoe-horned onto a 4 × 8-foot poster board in a crowded ballroom? The ultimate litmus test of an abstract presentation is whether it begets a peer-reviewed publication, an outcome that cannot be ascertained until months or years after everyone goes home.In this issue of Medical Decision Making (MDM), Greenberg and colleagues published a study of the 4-year outcomes of research studies presented at the 2003 SMDM annual meeting.1 Their results showed that, of 239 abstracts presented either as oral or poster presentations, 64 (27%) were ultimately published as full-length manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.Studies of the fate of meeting abstracts date back to the pre-SMDM era.2,3 The Cochrane Collaboration recently reviewed 79 studies of outcomes of abstracts presented at medical meetings, finding that 44.5% of abstracts completed the metamorphosis into a fulllength paper, with oral abstracts, abstracts reporting statistically significant findings, and abstracts reporting on randomized controlled trials faring the best. 4 The article by Greenberg and coauthors is thus certainly not the first to examine the fate of scientific meeting abstract presentations, but it is perhaps the first to examine abstracts presented at a medical decision making, health policy, health services research, or health economics meetings.As with previous studies, Greenberg and colleagues found that publication rates were greater for oral presentations than for poster presentations, in their case by a 2:1 margin. In putting together the scientific program, the program committee generally assigns the highest-rated abstracts to oral abstract sessions, so it comes as no surprise that oral abstracts tend to have higher publication rates. That fi...

show abstract

Peer Review in Publication: Factors Associated with the Full-Length Publication of Studies Presented in Abstract Form at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making

Cited by 26 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

Writing Abstracts and Developing Posters for National Meetings

Judging the Success of Annual Scientific Meetings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About