Publication rate of studies presented at veterinary anaesthesia specialty meetings during the years 2003–2008

Publication Rate and Evidence‐Based Evaluation of Abstracts Presented at the American College of Veterinary Surgeon's Annual Meeting

“…Key milestones for abstracts that went on to be published were examined and showed that most authors (71%) completed the process within 2 years (Table ), comparable to other published information . Each sequential milestone was completed by most within 1 year.…”

“…In one systematic review, the average publication rate for abstracts presented at a human surgery conferences was 45% . The only veterinary studies to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented at veterinary specialty conferences, cited publication rates of 74% and 63% …”

Comparison of conference abstracts and full‐text publications of randomized controlled trials presented at four consecutive World Congresses of Pain: Reporting quality and agreement of results

“…While on the one hand, a search for unpublished studies may allow systematic reviewers to be comprehensive and mitigate the impact of publication bias (McAuley et al, 2000), on the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about whether studies available only as conference abstracts ('abstracts') should be included at all in systematic reviews (Dundar et al, 2006;Saldanha et al, 2016). The concerns mainly arise because: (1) it may be difficult to assess the quality and extract data from the limited information generally available in abstracts (Dundar et al, 2006), and (2) discrepancies between abstracts and full-text publications of abstracts have been described in a number of assessments in different clinical areas (Weintraub, 1987;Chan et al, 2013;Livas et al, 2014;Hopewell et al, 2015;Wieser et al, 2015;Saldanha et al, 2016). Some of the discrepancies might be related to abstracts containing only preliminary data (Mahood et al, 2014).…”

Information retrieval for systematic reviews in food and feed topics: A narrative review

“…We also have comparatively little evidence to support searching extensively for “difficult‐to‐find” evidence outside of the human health field. Research has identified publication bias in food and feed related literature and relatively poor publication rates in disciplines related to food and feed . We also have some examples of reviews in food and feed topics that included a significant proportion of gray literature and in which the exclusion of unpublished evidence would result in insufficient data to undertake meta‐analyses .…”

“…Research has identified publication bias in food and feed related literature [71][72][73][74] and relatively poor publication rates in disciplines related to food and feed. [75][76][77] We also have some examples of reviews in food and feed topics that included a significant proportion of gray literature 78 and in which the exclusion of unpublished evidence would result in insufficient data to undertake meta-analyses. 38 However, further evidence is needed to enable us to understand the impact of publication bias on the conclusions of systematic reviews in food and feed topics.…”