Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The purpose of this study was to determine what factors influence the final publication status of cytopathology studies presented at national meetings. Abstracts involving cytopathology material were obtained from the following journals: Modern Pathology (volume 11, 1998), Acta Cytologica (volume 42, 1998), and the American Journal of Clinical Pathology (volumes 109 and 110, 1998). Using the National Library of Medicine Website, each abstract was searched by author and topic to determine if the study was published as a peer-reviewed article. The following parameters were evaluated: meeting where the abstract was presented, type of institution where the research was based, type of material used in the study, and application of ancillary techniques used in the study. The subsequent published articles were evaluated for journal and time to publication. Out of 257 studies presented in 1998, 85 (33%) were published in peer-reviewed journals by May 2000. The majority of papers were published in Diagnostic Cytopathology (n = 21), Acta Cytologica (n = 15), and Cancer (n = 18). The mean time for publication was 12.8 mo. The highest percentage of published studies was presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) meeting (50% of presented abstracts), followed by American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) (28%) and American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) (17%) meetings. Ancillary techniques were applied in 40 of 85 (47%) published studies, 27 of 85 (32%) articles focused on morphology, and 18 of 85 (21%) papers covered other topics (e.g., quality assurance (QA), cost, and role of cytology). In nonpublished studies (n = 172), special techniques were the main focus in 40%, morphology in 25%, and other topics in 35% of abstracts. The great majority (97%) of published studies were from academic institutions. Gynecological and nongynecological material were roughly equally covered in published and nonpublished studies. Only a relatively small percentage of presented studies was finalized in the form of peer-reviewed articles. Type of material and application of ancillary techniques do not significantly influence the outcome.
The purpose of this study was to determine what factors influence the final publication status of cytopathology studies presented at national meetings. Abstracts involving cytopathology material were obtained from the following journals: Modern Pathology (volume 11, 1998), Acta Cytologica (volume 42, 1998), and the American Journal of Clinical Pathology (volumes 109 and 110, 1998). Using the National Library of Medicine Website, each abstract was searched by author and topic to determine if the study was published as a peer-reviewed article. The following parameters were evaluated: meeting where the abstract was presented, type of institution where the research was based, type of material used in the study, and application of ancillary techniques used in the study. The subsequent published articles were evaluated for journal and time to publication. Out of 257 studies presented in 1998, 85 (33%) were published in peer-reviewed journals by May 2000. The majority of papers were published in Diagnostic Cytopathology (n = 21), Acta Cytologica (n = 15), and Cancer (n = 18). The mean time for publication was 12.8 mo. The highest percentage of published studies was presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) meeting (50% of presented abstracts), followed by American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) (28%) and American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) (17%) meetings. Ancillary techniques were applied in 40 of 85 (47%) published studies, 27 of 85 (32%) articles focused on morphology, and 18 of 85 (21%) papers covered other topics (e.g., quality assurance (QA), cost, and role of cytology). In nonpublished studies (n = 172), special techniques were the main focus in 40%, morphology in 25%, and other topics in 35% of abstracts. The great majority (97%) of published studies were from academic institutions. Gynecological and nongynecological material were roughly equally covered in published and nonpublished studies. Only a relatively small percentage of presented studies was finalized in the form of peer-reviewed articles. Type of material and application of ancillary techniques do not significantly influence the outcome.
Of pediatric radiology oral abstracts, 41.9% achieve publication after a period of at least 3 years from presentation. Studies originating from certain countries and on certain subspecialty topics were more likely to get published.
This chapter covers general bedside and chairside examination procedures and instruments used to examine a pediatric patient in an acute care setting. Pediatric patients may present to an emergency room or present emergently in any clinical setting with a wide variety of acute ocular conditions. When working in an emergency room or hospital-based setting, it is unlikely that a clinician will have all of the exam equipment typically used for routine care. The authors review the various ocular imaging techniques used to obtain a view of the internal structures of the eye, orbit, head, and brain when external examination is not sufficient. The procedures described aid the clinician in appropriately and thoroughly evaluating pediatric patients presenting with ocular emergencies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.