Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting

Abstract

Background: Presentations at scientific conferences are an important method of research dissemination, with abstracts often used to inform clinical practice. Abstract to publication ratio is a commonly used tool for determining meeting quality. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate for abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting (AOA ASM) between 2012 and 2015 inclusive and identify reasons for non-publication. Methods: MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to determine whether each abstract presented at AOA ASMs between 2012 and 2015 was associated with a full text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Where a publication could not be located, the presenter was contacted to confirm the reason for non-publication. Results: A total of 1130 abstracts were submitted (951 oral and 179 posters), and 573 resulted in full-text peer-reviewed publications (51%). The majority of publications (73%) were published within 2 years of presentation. There was no difference in likelihood of publication for oral presentations compared to posters, nor in the rate of publication across the 4 years of meetings. Common reasons for non-publication were lack of time (32%), publication considered low priority (27%) and journal rejections (22%). Conclusion:The overall publication rate for abstracts presented at the AOA ASM is 51%, which is an increase from the 1998 ASM (31%). This publication rate is higher than many similar Australian meetings and on par with other international orthopaedic and subspecialty meetings. Future research should investigate potential publication bias and methods to minimise barriers to publication.

A cross-sectional analysis of publication of pediatric global health abstracts from seven major international conferences

“…Publication rates for abstracts have ranged from as low as 11% in a pediatrics conference in Argentina to nearly 80% in pediatrics conferences in the United Kingdom and oncology conferences in the United States [ 17 , 21 , 22 ]. Our finding that 46.5% of pediatric global health abstracts had accompanying publications years later aligns with contemporary analyses of publication rates of abstracts in pediatric emergency medicine in the United States [ 10 ], orthopedic surgery in Australia [ 23 ], and post-graduate trainee abstracts in Pakistan [ 24 ]. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate publication rates of pediatric global health abstracts.…”

“…46.5% of pediatric global health abstracts had accompanying publications years later aligns with contemporary analyses of publication rates of abstracts in pediatric emergency medicine in the United States [10], orthopedic surgery in Australia [23], and post-graduate trainee abstracts in Pakistan [24]. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate publication rates of pediatric global health abstracts.…”

Scientific Abstract to Full Paper: Publication Rate over a 3-Year Period in a Malaysian Clinical Research Conference

“…The average publication rate during these three consecutive years was 19.7% annually. 4 These include observational studies, quasi-experimental studies, systematic and scoping reviews, and other study designs, 5 Due to computational power, Fisher's exact test was done with simulated p-value, 6 Publications in non-indexed journals were categorised as missing data when analysing journal impact factor of published abstracts because non-indexed journals do not have an impact factor.…”

“…Contrary to common observations that RCT abstracts have higher likelihoods of being published [3], only two out of the ten submitted RCT abstracts in our study were published. The reasons for non-publication were mainly due to time constraints and lesser prioritisations given to publish, which are commonly reported reasons among researchers who are working as healthcare professionals in the field [5,28,38]. Other reasons contributing to unpublished trials include the observation of undesirable results and protecting intellectual property rights [39,40].…”

“…Scientific conferences that are related to the medical or healthcare field often report publication rates which are close to or higher than this value. For instance, close to or over 50% of abstracts that are presented at conferences related to general internal medicine, orthopaedics, and cardiology achieved publication [4][5][6][7]. However, several reports also document publication rates that were substantially lower than this value, ranging from less than 4% [8] to less than 30% [9,10].…”