The fate of abstracts presented at Turkish national radiology congresses in 2010-2012

Abstract

R adiology meetings provide a significant channel for exchanging scientific information. Abstract presentations at national meetings allow a rapid transfer of knowledge in summarizing current research and focusing future research endeavors (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). In spite of the fact that many studies are of sufficient value for presentation in these sessions, only the most instructive and highest quality studies are worthy of full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal (2). The rate of publication may be considered as an indicator of the scientific quality of the meeting, that is, the ratio of presented abstracts to full-text published papers in peer-reviewed journals. In a survey of the literature, the publication rate of papers from a variety of specialties ranged between 8.5% and 78% (6). Worldwide, only a few investigations exist concerning radiology meetings, which report rates ranging 11%-47% (1-8). According to a study evaluating Turkish radiology meetings in years 1995-2002, the overall publication rate was 11% (1). We aimed to investigate the subsequent publication rates in Medline-indexed journals from presentations at the Turkish Congress of Radiology between 2010 and 2012. MethodsUsing the abstract CDs from the meetings, a list of the presentations submitted to Turkish national radiology congresses between 2010 and 2012 was obtained. The publication rate in Medline-indexed journals was determined by searching the PubMed database with the aim of exploring whether the abstracts had been expanded to full-text articles by September 2014. Three of the authors (N.F., A.K., and H.U.) performed this search via PubMed® using the first author's surname and initial(s). If this failed, the same search was performed for the second author or if necessary an appropriate keyword from the title of the abstract was added to the search. To METHODSAbstracts presented in the national radiology meetings of 2010, 2011, and 2012 were included in the study. The presentations were classified according to presentation type (oral or poster presentations), study type, study design, imaged organ or body systems, imaging modalities, time interval between the presentation and the publication date, and the journal in which the article was published. The conversion rate of presentations into full-text articles in peer-reviewed journals were surveyed through PubMed. The time from presentation in the meetings to publication was determined. The distribution of journals was also demonstrated. RESULTSThe total number of presentations submitted in three national radiology meetings was 3,192. The publication rate was 11% for the 2010 meeting, 8.2% for the 2011 meeting, and 9.6% for the 2012 meeting. A total of 300 papers were published, with an average of 15 months (range, 0-42 months) between presentation and final publication. The first three refereed international journals with the most number of papers derived from these meetings were Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Imaging, and European Journal of Radiology. CONCLUSIO...

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the First International Congress of Nephrology and Urology, Tehran, Iran, 2015

“…In the current study, the publication rate of prospective studies was the highest, which is similar to the findings of Beker-Acay et al indicating a higher publication rate for prospective studies (4). In contrast, Yoon et al reported higher publication rates for retrospective studies (20).…”

“…Consistently, other similar investigations have also demonstrated that the publication rate was comparatively higher for oral presentations (15). Dossett et al (19) and Beker-Acay et al (4) asserted that oral presentations have significantly greater chance to be published in journals. It may be related to higher quality standards of both reviewers and presenters for oral presentations than poster presentations.…”

“…This median time to publication was lower than those recorded in previous studies (21,22). In the previous investigations, search for published articles was conducted two years after the congress (4,6,8), while this time was 12 months for the current survey. Therefore, it is possible that most of the presented abstracts at the first ICNU had not been submitted to any journal, which can explain the low publication rate.…”

“…Therefore, the publication rate of presented abstracts at a conference is defined as an index for determining the conference's scientific quality (2,3). The abstract publication rate in a variety of medical specialties demonstrated a broad range of 8.5 to 78% in literature review (4,5). It is known that low publication rates of abstracts may have several reasons, most notably is the lack of time stated by researchers for preparation and submission of a full-text article.…”

Publication outcomes for research presented at a Canadian surgical conference

“…7,8 A wealth of studies documenting the rates of publication following abstract submission exists, and such studies have often been used as a marker of conference quality both within a particular specialty and across specialties. 3,6,[8][9][10][11][12] The most recent systematic review 6 reports a weighted mean publication rate following a conference presentation of 44.5%; however, the publication rates for individual conferences can vary substantially (8%-81%). With respect to vascular surgery, the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland Annual Meeting of 2001 and 2002 reported mean publication rates of 59.4%, whereas the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress has reported mean publication rates of 24.1%.…”