The quality of reporting and publication status of vaccines trials presented at veterinary conferences from 1988 to 2003

Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccines used in piglets

“…The risk of bias due to failure to blind was considered low because it the outcome is objectively measured. However, the prevalence of reporting of blinding still compares very favorably to other reports (two of eighty-nine) (Brace et al, 2010). Complete reporting of these design features was more likely in peer reviewed journals.…”

“…We choose to include conference proceedings because in swine production, it seems, publication in peer reviewed literature is a low priority. Prior data suggests that for swine vaccine trials fewer than 10% of conferences proceedings are followed up with peer reviewed publications (Brace et al, 2010). It is unclear why this is the case, however we speculate that many conferences proceedings are presented by biological companies which place a lower value on peer review publication.…”

“…The proportion of studies reporting reported randomization is higher than previously reported. Brace et al (2010) reported that only thirty of eightynine abstracts about vaccine studies from the American Association of Swine Veterinarians Conference reported randomization (33%). The risk of bias due to failure to blind was considered low because it the outcome is objectively measured.…”

“…Complete reporting of these design features was more likely in peer reviewed journals. As this paper contains more peer-reviewed articles and Brace et al (2010) only assessed conference abstracts it is perhaps not surprising that important design features are better reported.…”

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

“…It is not clear whether comparable patterns of overestimation of intervention effects are present in veterinary medicine systematic reviews, but this possibility exists, particularly since a much lower percentage of veterinary conference abstracts are later published in the journal literature than is the case in human medicine [25]. A study of swine and bovine vaccine trial conference papers found that only 5.6% of swine trial conference abstracts and 9.2% of bovine trial conference abstracts were ultimately published in the journal literature [26]. By contrast, a systematic review of conference abstract publication rates in human medicine found that 63% of abstracts of clinical trials presented at conferences were later published as journal articles, and subsequent publication was associated with positive results [25].…”