Thirty percent of abstracts presented at dental conferences are published in full: a systematic review

Abstract

Objectives: To review the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences, and investigate the association between full publication rate (FPR) and abstract characteristics, conference characteristics, and methodological quality of primary studies.Study Design and Setting: PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched from inception to November 2014 for studies that reported at least one FPR of abstracts presented at dental conferences, with a follow-up length of no less than 48 months. were not published more often than negative or nonsignificant abstracts, respectively. In multivariable meta-regression analysis, conferences held in Asia (P<0.001) and at a continental rather than national level (P<0.001) were significantly associated with higher FPR. Conclusions:Less than one third of abstracts presented at dental conferences were published in full, more than 4 years after the presentation.Keywords: Meeting abstracts; Publication bias; Publishing; Dentistry; Posters; Meta-analysis Running title: Publication fate of dental conference abstractsWhat is new? Key findingsl Less than one third of abstracts presented at dental conferences were published in full, more than 4 years after the conferences.l Abstracts presented orally, with statistical analyses, about basic science research, and those reported funding were significantly more likely to be published.l No evidence of publication bias was found at this stage of research dissemination.l The location and level of conferences were significantly associated with full publication. What this adds to what was known?l This study systematically reviewed all primary studies regarding the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences and, by using multivariable meta-regression, provided insight into the roles of conference characteristics and methodological quality (of primary studies) as predictors of full publication.l It adds to the body of evidence that many conference abstracts are never published in full. What is the implication and what should change now?l When analyzing predictors of full publication, future research regarding the publication fate of conference abstracts should control for the level and location of conferences. / 22

Factors affecting peer‐reviewed publication of abstracts presented at meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists (2008–2012)

“…While abstracts presented at scientific conferences often guide clinicians and researchers in their subsequent work, and are cited in textbooks and peer‐reviewed publications (PRPs), these abstracts have several shortcomings. Many of them cannot be located using online search engines such as PubMed; they may contain only partial or preliminary results; they rarely contain enough information to allow colleagues to duplicate the study or to calculate the statistical power and significance of the results; the review process is often not as stringent as in PRP, and sometimes, there may be contradictions between the preliminary findings presented in an abstract and those eventually published in a PRP . Because of these potential shortcomings, PRP of studies originally presented as meeting abstracts is the desirable outcome of clinical and scientific studies, as such publication implies that the work underwent rigorous peer review and ensures it is available to the scientific community at large.…”

Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication

“…There is abundant evidence that many biomedical studies never reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal [1–3]. Studies with statistically significant results are published more often than those with nonsignificant results [1,2,4–6].…”

Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research

“…The emergence of openaccess journals has contributed to this phenomenon, and some authors argue that this method of publication contributes to the concept of predatory publication, by which certain publishers attempt to circumvent the established guidelines and bioethics to maximize publications and profits (Bowman, 2014;Angelini and Blackwell-Sachs, 2015;Dadkhah et al, 2016b;Vinny et al, 2016). The trend of predatory publication has been reported across a wide range of medical disciplines, including bioethics, dentistry, ophthalmology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and nursing (Baker, 2015;Hill, 2015;Nolfi et al, 2015;Roberts, 2015;Eriksson and Helgesson, 2016;Hua et al, 2016aHua et al, , 2016bNatarajan and Nair, 2016;Oermann et al, 2016;Van Nuland and Rogers, 2016;Manca et al, 2017).…”