Fate of abstracts presented at an International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) congress – followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals?

Rollin, Laétitia; Darmoni, Stéfan Jacques; Caillard, J. F.; Géhanno, Jean-François

doi:10.5271/sjweh.1362

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This median time to publication was lower than those recorded in previous studies (21,22). In the previous investigations, search for published articles was conducted two years after the congress (4,6,8), while this time was 12 months for the current survey.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 38%

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the First International Congress of Nephrology and Urology, Tehran, Iran, 2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The publication rate of abstracts presented at a scientific congress is considered as an indicator of congress's scientific quality. This rate is in range of 11% to 78% with an average of 45% in international medical congresses. The current survey aimed to determine the publication rate of the presented abstracts at the first international congress of nephrology and urology (ICNU) in 2015. Methods: Data of oral and poster presentations including abstracts' titles and authors were gathered from the proceeding of the first ICNU, Tehran, Iran, 2015. The presented abstracts were searched in Scopus, PubMed, and ISC (for Persian language published papers). All the abstracts were categorized based on presentation type (oral or poster presentation), topic, study type and design, publication status, time interval between the presentation and the publication date, and the journal publishing the full text of the abstracts. Statistical analysis was done by SPSS (version 18, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results: The total number of abstracts accepted at the first ICNU was 210 (63 as oral and 147 as poster). The results showed that 49 out of 210 abstracts were published as full-text articles in indexed journals, giving the overall publication rate of 23.3%. 6 out of 49 published papers were in Persian Language. In this survey, the rate of publication was 41.3% for oral presentations. The abstracts of prospective studies and original articles were more likely to be published in journals. The median time to publication was 5.3 months (range 1 -12 months). Conclusions: Novel ideas and innovative approaches were discussed at the first ICNU, Tehran, Iran, 2015. The 23.3% publication rate found in the current study was lower than the mean publication rate of previous medical congresses. If the presented abstracts in a congress are not published as papers to be available to all, it would be waste of effort and time.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 38%

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the First International Congress of Nephrology and Urology, Tehran, Iran, 2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To identify the studies that worth to be included in a systematic review, we relied on the works of the experts used as reviewer in the systematic reviews we included, since all of them used at least 2 independent reviewers. Furthermore, we excluded from our gold standard database personal communications, because they cannot be retrieved by any database, and abstracts because it has been clearly demonstrated that such abstracts often display non-valid results [21,22]. Considering the methods used by the authors of the systematic reviews we selected, the use of at least two independent reviewers to select relevant articles in these reviews, the high number of databases searched and the absence of restriction to English studies in each of them, we can also assume that, for each topic covered, all the relevant studies were identified.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews

Gehanno

Rollin

Darmoni

2013

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

Self Cite

252

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn searches for clinical trials and systematic reviews, it is said that Google Scholar (GS) should never be used in isolation, but in addition to PubMed, Cochrane, and other trusted sources of information. We therefore performed a study to assess the coverage of GS specifically for the studies included in systematic reviews and evaluate if GS was sensitive enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.MethodsAll the original studies included in 29 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database Syst Rev or in the JAMA in 2009 were gathered in a gold standard database. GS was searched for all these studies one by one to assess the percentage of studies which could have been identified by searching only GS.ResultsAll the 738 original studies included in the gold standard database were retrieved in GS (100%).ConclusionThe coverage of GS for the studies included in the systematic reviews is 100%. If the authors of the 29 systematic reviews had used only GS, no reference would have been missed. With some improvement in the research options, to increase its precision, GS could become the leading bibliographic database in medicine and could be used alone for systematic reviews.

show abstract

“…Abstracts presented in congress or meetings that were already included in the Cochrane systematic review were excluded from our gold standard database since it has been clearly demonstrated such abstracts often display invalid results (11,12). Therefore, we can assume that our database really included all the high quality studies relevant to the topics covered by the systematic reviews and only high-quality studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for high-quality articles about intervention studies in occupational health – what is really missed when using only the Medline database?

Rollin¹,

Darmoni²,

Caillard³

et al. 2010

Scand J Work Environ Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fate of abstracts presented at an International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) congress – followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals?

Abstract: Refers to the following text of the Journal: 2007;33(4):245-251The following articles refer to this text: 2010;36(6): 484-487; 2011;37(6):494-501

Cited by 13 publications

References 14 publications

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the First International Congress of Nephrology and Urology, Tehran, Iran, 2015

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the First International Congress of Nephrology and Urology, Tehran, Iran, 2015

Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews

Searching for high-quality articles about intervention studies in occupational health – what is really missed when using only the Medline database?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About