An Observational Study of Orthopaedic Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Text Publications

Bhandari, Mohit; Devereaux, P.J.; Guyatt, Gordon; Cook, Deborah J.; Swiontkowski, Marc F.; Sprague, Sheila; Schemitsch, Emil H.

doi:10.2106/00004623-200204000-00017

Cited by 241 publications

(290 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

256

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This allowed between 3 and 8 years for full-text publication of the presented abstracts. We were likely to find most, if not all, subsequent publications given that a previous report identified a mean of 1.5 years' publication delay from presentation to full-text publication [1]. During the shoulder and elbow sessions of the AAOS annual meetings from 1999 to 2004, 558 abstracts were presented.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some circumstances, patient care may be altered based solely on findings presented via papers or posters at these meetings. The need for accurate abstract information is highlighted by the fact that 50% of chapters in major orthopaedic textbooks contain references to abstracts presented at meetings [1]. However, abstracts do not always contain the information necessary for readers to assess their validity [6,18,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

DeMola

Hill

Rogers

et al. 2008

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many shoulder and elbow abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting are cited in the orthopaedic literature or are used to guide orthopaedic practice, but not all of these abstracts are submitted, survive peer review, or eventually are published. Presuming unpublished works have not been scientifically confirmed, one could question whether it is academically responsible to cite abstracts presented at the AAOS before they are peer-reviewed and published. To partly address this issue we determined the peer-reviewed publication rate for 558 abstracts (233 papers and 325 posters) presented at the shoulder and elbow sessions of the AAOS from 1999 to 2004. In April 2007, we searched the computerized database MEDLINE 1 and PubMed 1 for published articles based on these abstracts. We examined the published articles to assess publication rate, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors, and change in conclusions of abstracts. The overall publication rate in peer-reviewed journals was 58% (321 of 558), similar to other orthopaedic meetings and medical disciplines. We believe it is unacceptable to cite shoulder and elbow abstracts submitted to the AAOS because only slightly more than ½ (58%) of them are authenticated scientifically.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

DeMola

Hill

Rogers

et al. 2008

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 These concerns are increased by the finding that, of those studies that are subsequently published, the data in the peer-reviewed journal differs substantially from that initially presented at a meeting in around half of the cases. 2,3 To add to the uncertainty surrounding the use of meeting abstracts to guide practice, this study shows that discrepancies are frequently encountered between the abstract submitted which appears in the 'Final Programme and Abstracts', and the actual work presented. With the interval between the closing date for abstract submission and the meeting date typically stretching to several months (Table 1), the possibility that authors may be speculatively submitting abstracts on the basis of incomplete research projects must be considered when reading collections of abstracts from scientific meetings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…2,3 Although a minority of authors offer printed reproductions of their posters for interested parties at the meeting, the official collection of abstracts is frequently the only written record of the presented research available to delegates for reference at a later date, as not all studies will appear as publications in peer-reviewed journals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do recorded abstracts from scientific meetings concur with the research presented?

Spokes

2009

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Research abstracts for scientific meetings are usually submitted several months in advance of the meeting. Authors may therefore be tempted to submit an abstract on the basis of the research that is ongoing or not yet fully analysed. This study aims to determine the extent to which submitted abstracts, often disseminated in printed form or online, differ from the research ultimately presented. The risk taken by clinicians considering changes in practice on the basis of presented research who refer back to the printed abstract can be assessed. Methods All posters presented at the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Annual Congress 2007 were compared with abstracts in the 'Final Programme and Abstracts'. Discrepancies were recorded for authorship, title, methodology, number of cases, results and conclusions. Results A total of 171 posters were examined. The title changed in 21% (36/171) and authorship in 25%. The number of cases differed in 22% (number of cases in the poster ranging from less than one quarter to more than triple the number in the abstract). Differences between abstract and poster were found in the methodology of 4%, the results of 11% and conclusions of 5% of studies. Conclusions Scientific meetings provide an opportunity for timely dissemination of new research presented directly to clinicians who may then consider change of practice in response. Caution is advised when referring back to printed records of abstracts, as substantial discrepancies are frequently seen between the published abstract and the final research presented, which, in a minority of cases, may even alter the conclusions of the research.

show abstract

“…Symposium: 2014 Musculoskeletal Tumor Society [2,3]. The presentations at our prior meetings were scrutinized for scientific validity 12 years ago [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial Comment: 2014 Musculoskeletal Tumor Society

Healey

2016

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An Observational Study of Orthopaedic Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Text Publications

Cited by 241 publications

References 15 publications

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

Do recorded abstracts from scientific meetings concur with the research presented?

Editorial Comment: 2014 Musculoskeletal Tumor Society

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About