Conversion of Cardiovascular Conference Abstracts to Publications

Fosbøl, Emil Loldrup; Fosbøl, Philip Loldrup; Harrington, Robert A.; Eapen, Zurbin J.; Peterson, Eric D.

doi:10.1161/circulationaha.112.120535

Cited by 44 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although, in general, fewer abstracts were presented as OPs compared to PPs [1,3,14,15,16], our study showed that OPs may be considered superior in meetings covering the disciplines of surgery [2]. The overall PRs reported in similar studies were within the range of 12.5-58%, which is comparable to the PR observed in our study (40.9%) [1,3,14,15,16,17,18,19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Congress of the European Society for Surgical Research during 2008-2011

Meral¹,

Alakuş

Urkan

et al. 2016

Eur Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Purpose: The presentation of scientific studies at major meetings serves to rapidly share study results with the scientific community. On the other hand, full-text publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals ensures the dissemination of science. This study examines the publication rate (PR) of meeting abstracts presented at the European Society for Surgical Research (ESSR) congresses and determines/compares the factors affecting the PRs. Methods: All presentations at the ESSR congresses held during 2008-2011 were retrospectively assessed. Manuscripts indexed in PubMed were included. The meeting year, journal impact factor (IF) in the publication year, study type, presentation type, time to publication and geographic origin of studies were assessed. Results: Among a total of 1,368 oral and poster abstracts, 48.7% (n = 391) of the oral presentations (OPs) and 29.7% (n = 168) of the poster presentations (PPs) were published in medical journals indexed in PubMed. The mean IF of the journals was 2.696 (0.17-14.95). The journals that published OPs had a higher IF than the journals in which PPs were published (2.944 vs. 2.118; p < 0.001). The PR was also higher in the OP group than in the PP group of journals (p < 0.001). The time to publication was 17.5 months (−166 to 82) and was shorter for PPs than for OPs (14.02 vs. 19.09 months; p = 0.01). According to the study type, experimental studies had a significantly higher PR (53.7%; p < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference in PR in terms of the prospective or retrospective nature of clinical studies. The clinical studies were also compared according to the IF values of the journals in terms of the prospective or retrospective nature of the study, and no significant difference was found (p = 0.62). Conclusion: The ESSR congress is an efficient meeting for researchers from varied surgical disciplines and has a PR equivalent to that of similar scientific meetings. The congress has achieved a PR of 40.9% over 4 years with an average IF of 2.696 and a mean time to publication of 17.5 months, which is equivalent to that of similar scientific meetings. OPs have a higher PR in journals with greater IF values as compared with PPs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Congress of the European Society for Surgical Research during 2008-2011

Meral¹,

Alakuş

Urkan

et al. 2016

Eur Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 Winnik et al conducted and reported a very comprehensive manual study on this same topic using data from ≈1000 randomly selected abstracts from the European Society of Cardiology Scientific Sessions. 3 Their study was published when our manuscript was in the review process for Circulation.…”

Section: Correspondencementioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Letters Regarding Article, “Conversion of Cardiovascular Conference Abstracts to Publications”

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results reported by Winnik et al were similar to ours, although in a smaller sample. We sincerely regret that we were not aware of and therefore did not acknowledge the fine work by Winnik et al. We find the results intriguing, particularly the link between abstract grading and subsequent publication likelihood. Evidence is accumulating for a suboptimal conversion of science from abstracts to publications in cardiology. We are happy to learn that Winnik et al agree with our conclusions and that more work is needed to ensure faster and complete sharing of scientific knowledge. Key opinion leaders should encourage publication of scientific abstracts. More discussion and research are needed to break down some of these publication barriers. We encourage collaboration to achieve this common goal.In the letter by Cobos Gil, 4 we were happy to learn that he concurs with our suggestion to grade and benchmark conferences. Cobos Gil suggests grading conferences on the potential impact factor, calculated as the sum of impact factors for the published abstracts divided by the number of presented abstracts. In our study, we demonstrated that the impact factor of subsequently published abstracts is associated with the scientific category (basic versus clinical versus population science) of the individual abstract. Therefore, the metric suggested by Cobos Gil would tend to favor conferences with more basic science. We also believe that the metric put forward by Cobos Gil may overemphasize the journal impact factor, thereby underestimating the specific scientific content of the individual abstracts presented at the conference. Like articles published in high-tier journals, those published in low-tier journals are often cited many times and can influence treatment guidelines. As a result, we suggest a couple of specific metrics in addition to the one proposed by Cobos Gil. First, the simple overall adjusted publication rate within a given time frame would be informative about the conference overall and would be easily reported by our algorithm. Second, a metric could include more specific information about the abstract and its consequent influence on the field, which could be assessed by calculating the number of citations the subsequent publication receives within a set time frame and indexing this number with the overall adjusted publication rate of the conference.Cobos Gil underlines a very important point at the end of his letter. With the algorithm developed for our article in Circulation, we now have a tool and several objective metrics that we can use to benchmark medical conferences. This algorithm may be a way to ensure that science continues to be at the center of these conferences, not to mention an incentive for the conference committees.

show abstract

“…There were no differences in the proportion of published abstracts between oral or poster presentations, which was not addressed in the article by Fosbøl et al 1 Additionally, in our study, we proposed a bibliometric index for the scientific relevance of a medical congress: the potential impact factor. This index is defined as the sum of the impact factor of all the published abstracts divided by the number of the abstracts presented at the meeting:…”

Section: To the Editormentioning

confidence: 60%

Letter by Cobos Gil Regarding Article, “Conversion of Cardiovascular Conference Abstracts to Publications”

Gil

2013

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversion of Cardiovascular Conference Abstracts to Publications

Cited by 44 publications

References 15 publications

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Congress of the European Society for Surgical Research during 2008-2011

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Congress of the European Society for Surgical Research during 2008-2011

Response to Letters Regarding Article, “Conversion of Cardiovascular Conference Abstracts to Publications”

Letter by Cobos Gil Regarding Article, “Conversion of Cardiovascular Conference Abstracts to Publications”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About