Discrepancies Between Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Full Text Publications in Hand Surgery

An Observational Study of Abstracts Presented at the American College of Veterinary Surgeon Annual Meetings (2001–2008) and Their Subsequent Full‐Text Publication

“…While the publication conversion of presented abstracts was relatively high, there were frequent discrepancies noted between abstracts and full‐text final publications. Multiple observational studies comparing abstracts and subsequent full‐text publications in the human literature have identified similar inconsistences between abstracts and final publication in peer‐reviewed journals . Increased time to publication has been associated with inconsistences between presented and published abstracts in a number of human and veterinary studies, so our finding that a delay in publication increased the likelihood of inconsistencies was not entirely unexpected .…”

“…Authors cite several reasons for nonpublication, including rejection after peer‐review, lack of time, low likelihood of acceptance, ongoing or incomplete studies, difficulty with co‐workers, or publication in formats other than articles . Major inconsistencies often exist between the original abstract and final article, including changes in sample size, study design, outcome measure, and results . Any of these changes can alter a study's conclusions, and in turn, affect how the information should be integrated into existing practice.…”

Progress to publication of survey research presented at anesthesiology society meetings

“…The portion of abstracts presented at the ASA annual meeting that went on to publication falls within the previously reported range of 24% to 71%, while the percentage of IARS abstracts that went on to peer‐reviewed publication falls just short of this range. Regarding time to publication, previous studies indicate average times of 14 to 18 months between conference presentation and manuscript publication . While the IARS abstracts’ median time to publication fell within this range, abstracts presented at ASA took longer to reach publication.…”

“…Abstract presentation facilitates rapid dissemination of research findings, but results presented at a meeting are conventionally considered preliminary until published in a peer‐reviewed journal . For this reason, authors are discouraged from referencing abstracts in textbooks and articles without a disclaimer, and many anesthesiology journals impose limitations on citing abstracts …”

Characteristics and Fate of Pediatric Heart Disease Abstracts Presented at National Meetings

“…(Ann Thorac Surg 2019;107:173-9) Ó 2019 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons S cientific meetings of professional medical societies are the main channel to disseminate innovative research to practicing providers and educators. Research presented at scientific meetings is often preliminary and is not as detailed as that published in peer-reviewed journals [1][2][3]. It has been shown that results presented in an abstract might be different from those that later appear in a peer-reviewed publication [2][3][4].…”