The rate of publication of free papers at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy congresses

Abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency with which free papers presented at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) congress were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, this study evaluated whether any correlations exist between the level of evidence of the free papers and their frequency of publication or the impact factor of the journals in which they are published.MethodsFree papers presented at the 2008 and 2010 ESSKA congresses were included for assessment. Clinical papers (observational studies and trials involving direct interaction between an investigator and human subjects) were graded for level of evidence by two independent reviewers. A comprehensive strategy was used to search the databases PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), and EMBASE for all publications corresponding to the included free papers.ResultsThree hundred-ninety presentations were evaluated, of which 215 (55%) were ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal within five years of the presentation date. The mean time from presentation to publication was 16 months (SD 25 months). There was no significant difference in the distribution of the level of evidence between studies that were ultimately published, versus those that were not published (n.s.). The level of evidence of the published study was not a significant predictor of the impact factor of the journal in which it was published (n.s.). Presentations were most commonly published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (24%) and The American Journal of Sports Medicine (22%).ConclusionFree papers at the 2008 and 2010 ESSKA congress were published at a frequency that is comparable to that at other orthopaedic meetings. The publication rate was similar across all levels of evidence. Further encouragement of manuscript preparation and submission following these meetings could help to ensure important research findings are disseminated to large audiences.

Increase in publication rates and publication bias found following presentation at the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery, and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine (ISAKOS) biennial congress

“…It is important to note that 15% of the abstracts were published prior to the meeting. Similar results were found at the ESSKA Congress and AANA meetings where 12% and 9.3% of abstracts were published prior to presentation, respectively 4 9. This finding may be explained by the fact that as a manuscript is nearing completion, it may be simultaneously submitted to a journal for review as well as to an upcoming scientific meeting 9.…”

“…These publication rates are comparable to other orthopaedic conferences (table 3). The European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) biennial congress reported publication rates in 2008 and 2010 of 52% and 59%, respectively 4. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS) 2001 meeting had a publication rate of 49% 3.…”

“…These studies may serve to highlight the high-quality abstracts that are being presented at the ISAKOS Congress, as they were already publishable material at the time of submission. This phenomenon may also be due to the biennial nature of the Congress, as authors may not want to wait 2 years to first present a novel abstract at a conference, and then submit for review to a journal 4…”

“…The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar were used to identify subsequent publication of Congress abstracts from database inception until 31 December 2018. This facilitated reporting of 5-year publication rates, which previous studies have shown to be an acceptable length of time for publication 4. In order to account for possible changes made to the abstracts following the meeting, keywords and author names were used in the search query to ensure inclusion of all abstracts.…”

“…Since this time, publication rates of abstracts presented at the ISAKOS Congress have not been studied despite the significant growth to over 700 abstracts presented biennially. In addition, previous studies have noted factors such as study design, subspecialty, sample size, multiple authors and non-negative studies with positive results to influence publication in peer-reviewed journals or increase time to publication 3–7. The aim of the current review is to determine the rate of publication of abstracts presented at the 2013 ISAKOS Congress and explore the influence of the aforementioned variables on the subsequent publication of these abstracts.…”