Publication rate of podium presentations from the orthopaedic research society annual meeting

Hollenberg, Alex M.; Bernstein, David N.; Beltejar, Michael-John; Terry, Treyc; Mesfin, Addisu

doi:10.1002/jor.24144

“…is trend towards higher publication rates in recent years is reflected throughout orthopedics. Publication rates for national orthopedic meetings ranged from 34% to 67% in the 1990s, compared to 54% to 74% in recent reports, which is similar to our results [1][2][3][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. e OTA meeting is one wellstudied example, with relatively high publication rates overall that increased from 67% (1994 to 1998) to 73% (2008 to 2012) for podium presentations [2,3].…”

Section: Sarcomasupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings

Collier

¹

,

Quereshy

²

,

Getty

³

2021

Sarcoma

2

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Scientific meetings provide a forum to disseminate new research and advance patient care. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS), and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meetings are examples of such gatherings in the field of musculoskeletal oncology. After a review of select MSTS abstracts from 1991 to 1999 revealed a 41% publication rate in scientific journals, previous authors cautioned meeting attendees that the majority of abstracts may not survive rigorous peer review and may not be scientifically valid. Since two decades have passed, this study reexamined publication rates and characteristics in a contemporary and expanded cohort of oncology abstracts presented at the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings. Methods. 1408 podium and poster abstracts from the AAOS (oncology-focused from 2013 to 2015), CTOS (2012 to 2014), and MSTS (2012 to 2014) annual meetings were reviewed to allow for a four-year publication window. Searches were performed with PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify full-text publications using abstract keywords. Characteristics of each abstract and resulting publication were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests for time-independent comparisons, and the log-rank test after reverse Kaplan-Meier analysis for time-dependent comparisons. Results. Abstract publication rates overall were higher for podium presentations (67%, 280 of 415) compared to poster presentations (53%, 530 of 993; p < 0.001 ). When both abstract types were combined, differences between meetings did not meet statistical significance (AAOS: 65%, 106 of 162; CTOS: 57%, 521 of 909; MSTS: 54%, 183 of 337, p = 0.06 ). Abstracts from AAOS meetings were more often published prior to the first day of the meeting (AAOS: 24%, 25 of 106; CTOS: 10%, 52 of 521; MSTS: 14%, 25 of 183; p < 0.01 ). After excluding previously published abstracts, AAOS abstracts had the shortest time to publication (median: 10.8 months, interquartile range (IQR): 4.4 to 18.8 months), compared to those from CTOS (16.0 months, 8.4 to 25.9 months, p < 0.01 ) and MSTS (15 months, 7.9 to 25.0 months, p < 0.01 ) meetings. CTOS abstracts were published in higher impact journals (median: 3.7, IQR: 2.9 to 5.9), compared to those from AAOS (2.9, 1.9 to 3.2, p < 0.01 ) and MSTS (3.1, 2.3 to 3.1, p < 0.01 ) meetings. Finally, 7.7% (62 of 810) of published abstracts were presented at more than one meeting. Conclusions. Publication rates in this study were higher than previous reports in musculoskeletal oncology and comparable or better than recent reports for other orthopedic meetings. Comparisons across the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings highlight notable differences but suggest similarity overall in the quality of evidence presented with little overlap between meetings. Taken together, this study points to progress in the review processes used by the program committees, reaffirms the importance of critical appraisal when considering abstract findings, and supports the continued organization of multiple scientific meetings in musculoskeletal oncology.

show abstract

“… 41 , 42 It is possible that currently unpublished research may be published after the completion of this study, though our minimum follow‐up period of 4.5 years was longer than many similar studies. 4 , 15 , 19 , 22 , 24 Other factors that may impact on publication such as study type, number of authors, positivity and significance of results were not investigated in this study and should be explored in future research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overall publication rate is higher than other Australian scientific meetings 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and on par with other international orthopaedic and subspecialty meetings. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 This is a reflection of the quality of the research being presented at this meeting, as high quality abstracts are more likely to be converted to peer‐reviewed publication. The quality of research is also supported by the high median impact factor of journals in which presented papers were published (2.35).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Balhatchet

¹

,

Schütze

²

,

Awais

³

et al. 2022

ANZ Journal of Surgery

2

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…As an attendee, it is important to understand the benefit of these events because a known variability exists in the quantity of data presented at a meeting versus the quantity subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. 1-11…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Major Orthopaedic Conference Abstract Publication: An Analysis of Abstracts Accepted for the AAOS Annual Meetings Between 2014 and 2017

Le

¹

,

Anderson

²

,

Chalmers

³

et al. 2021

J Am Acad Orthop Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting provides an opportunity for clinicians to attain the most recent advancements in the orthopaedic field. However, the most recent study analyzing publication rates from the 2001 Annual Meeting determined that only 49% of the podium and poster abstracts were eventually published. The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rate, likelihood of publication based on the presentation format, and time to publication for abstracts presented at the 2014 to 2017 AAOS Annual Meetings. Methods: We did a comprehensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar to determine whether abstracts presented in the podium, poster, and scientific exhibit formats from the 2014 to 2017 AAOS Annual Meetings were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Abstract title, authors, and keywords were used to query for publication status and date of publication. Results: We analyzed 5,902 abstracts from the 2014 to 2017 AAOS Annual Meetings. The overall publication rate for podium and poster presentations was 69.9%, with individual publication rates at 73.0% and 65.1%, respectively. A higher likelihood of publication in the podium format was noted with odds ratio 1.45 (P < 0.0001). Scientific exhibits displayed a publication rate of 46.9%. Most publications in all formats occurred within 2 years. Conclusion: A large increase was noted in the quality of research being presented at the AAOS Annual Meeting. With 69.9% of podium and poster presentations from the 2014 to 2017 Annual Meetings being published in a peer-reviewed journal, clinicians can use the data presented as an up-to-date, adjunct source of guidance for their clinical practices.

show abstract

Publication rate of podium presentations from the orthopaedic research society annual meeting

Cited by 9 publications

References 26 publications

Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings

Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings

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

Major Orthopaedic Conference Abstract Publication: An Analysis of Abstracts Accepted for the AAOS Annual Meetings Between 2014 and 2017

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About