Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

Lerman, Daniel M.; Cable, Matthew G.; Thornley, Patrick; Evaniew, Nathan; Slobogean, Gerard P.; Bhandari, Mohit; Healey, John H.; Randall, R. Lor; Ghert, Michelle

doi:10.1007/s11999-016-4763-x

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(70 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This increase corresponded to an increase in the level of evidence, as defined by commonly used evidence-based guidelines, presented over the same time period [ 17 ]. However, a similar study examining the level of evidence presented at MSTS meetings did not identify an improvement over time [ 18 ]. This suggests that the higher publication rates observed in our study are not related to improved levels of evidence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings

Collier

Quereshy

Getty

2021

Sarcoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Scientific meetings provide a forum to disseminate new research and advance patient care. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS), and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meetings are examples of such gatherings in the field of musculoskeletal oncology. After a review of select MSTS abstracts from 1991 to 1999 revealed a 41% publication rate in scientific journals, previous authors cautioned meeting attendees that the majority of abstracts may not survive rigorous peer review and may not be scientifically valid. Since two decades have passed, this study reexamined publication rates and characteristics in a contemporary and expanded cohort of oncology abstracts presented at the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings. Methods. 1408 podium and poster abstracts from the AAOS (oncology-focused from 2013 to 2015), CTOS (2012 to 2014), and MSTS (2012 to 2014) annual meetings were reviewed to allow for a four-year publication window. Searches were performed with PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify full-text publications using abstract keywords. Characteristics of each abstract and resulting publication were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests for time-independent comparisons, and the log-rank test after reverse Kaplan-Meier analysis for time-dependent comparisons. Results. Abstract publication rates overall were higher for podium presentations (67%, 280 of 415) compared to poster presentations (53%, 530 of 993; p < 0.001 ). When both abstract types were combined, differences between meetings did not meet statistical significance (AAOS: 65%, 106 of 162; CTOS: 57%, 521 of 909; MSTS: 54%, 183 of 337, p = 0.06 ). Abstracts from AAOS meetings were more often published prior to the first day of the meeting (AAOS: 24%, 25 of 106; CTOS: 10%, 52 of 521; MSTS: 14%, 25 of 183; p < 0.01 ). After excluding previously published abstracts, AAOS abstracts had the shortest time to publication (median: 10.8 months, interquartile range (IQR): 4.4 to 18.8 months), compared to those from CTOS (16.0 months, 8.4 to 25.9 months, p < 0.01 ) and MSTS (15 months, 7.9 to 25.0 months, p < 0.01 ) meetings. CTOS abstracts were published in higher impact journals (median: 3.7, IQR: 2.9 to 5.9), compared to those from AAOS (2.9, 1.9 to 3.2, p < 0.01 ) and MSTS (3.1, 2.3 to 3.1, p < 0.01 ) meetings. Finally, 7.7% (62 of 810) of published abstracts were presented at more than one meeting. Conclusions. Publication rates in this study were higher than previous reports in musculoskeletal oncology and comparable or better than recent reports for other orthopedic meetings. Comparisons across the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings highlight notable differences but suggest similarity overall in the quality of evidence presented with little overlap between meetings. Taken together, this study points to progress in the review processes used by the program committees, reaffirms the importance of critical appraisal when considering abstract findings, and supports the continued organization of multiple scientific meetings in musculoskeletal oncology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings

Collier

Quereshy

Getty

2021

Sarcoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within the surgical subspecialty of orthopedic oncology, there is very little high-level evidence to inform clinical decision-making-including a lack of international multicenter surgical RCTs [17,18]. Given the rarity of soft tissue and bone sarcomas, a collaborative multicenter approach is needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recruitment patterns in a large international randomized controlled trial of perioperative care in cancer patients

Gazendam

Bozzo

Schneider

et al. 2021

Trials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery (PARITY) randomized controlled trial (RCT) was the first study to prospectively enroll and randomize orthopedic oncology patients in multiple centers internationally. The objective of this study was to describe recruitment patterns, to examine the differences in enrollment across different PARITY sites, and to identify variables associated with differing levels of recruitment. Methods Data from this study was obtained from the PARITY trial Methods Center and records of correspondence between the Methods Center and recruiting sites. We performed descriptive statistics to report the recruitment patterns over time. We compared recruitment, time to set up, and time to enroll the first patient between North American and international sites, private and public healthcare models, and the presence or absence of research personnel. Two-tailed non-paired t tests were performed to test average monthly recruitment rates between groups. Results A total of 602 patients from 36 North American and 12 international sites were recruited from 2013 to 2019. North American sites were able to become fully enrollment-ready at an average of 19.5 months and international sites at an average of 27 months. Once enrolling, international sites were able to enroll 0.59 patients per/month whereas North American sites averaged a monthly recruitment rate of 0.2 patients/month once enrolling. Sites with research personnel reached enrollment-ready status at an average of 19.3 months and sites without research support at an average of 30.3 months. Once enrolling, the recruitment rate was 0.28 patients/month and 0.2 patients per month for sites with and without research support, respectively. Publicly funded sites had a monthly enrollment of 0.4 patients/month whereas privately funded sites had a monthly enrollment rate of 0.17 patients/month. Conclusions As a collaborative group, the PARITY investigators increased the pace of recruitment throughout the trial, likely by increasing the number of active sites. The longer time to start-up at international sites may be due to the complex governing regulations of pharmaceutical trials. Nevertheless, international sites should be considered essential as they recruited significantly more patients per month once active. The absence of research support personnel may lead to delays in the time to start-up. The results of the current study will provide guidance for choosing which sites to recruit for participation in future collaborative clinical trials in orthopedic oncology and other surgical specialties. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01479283. Prospectively registered on November 24, 2011

show abstract

“…Within the surgical subspecialty of orthopaedic oncology, there is very little high level evidence to inform clinical decision making -including a lack of international multicenter surgical RCTs [17,18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recruitment patterns in a large international randomized controlled trial of perioperative care in cancer patients

Gazendam

Bozzo

Schneider

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery (PARITY) randomized controlled trial (RCT) was the first study to prospectively enroll and randomize orthopaedic oncology patients in multiple centers internationally. The objective of this study was to describe recruitment patterns, examine the differences in enrollment across different PARITY sites, and to identify variables associated with differing levels of recruitment.Methods: Data from this study was obtained from the PARITY trial Methods Center and records of correspondence between the Methods Center and recruiting sites. We performed descriptive statistics to report the recruitment patterns over time. We compared recruitment, time to set up, and time to enroll the first patient between North American and international sites, private and public health care models, and the presence or absence of research personnel. Two-tailed non-paired t-tests were performed to test average monthly recruitment rates between groups. Results: A total of 602 patients from 36 North American and 12 international sites were recruited from 2013 to 2019. Average monthly enrollment increased each year of the study. North American sites were able to start up significantly faster than international sites (19.5 vs. 27.0 months p=0.04). However, international sites had a significantly higher recruitment rate once active (0.2 participants/month vs. 0.59 participants/month, p=0.023). Sites with research personnel were able to reach ‘enrolment ready’ status significantly faster than sites without research personnel (19.3 vs. 30.3 months, p=0.032), but there was no difference in recruitment once active (0.28 participants/month vs. 0.2 participants/month). Publicly funded sites were to recruit significantly more patients compared to private institutions (0.4/month vs. 0.17/month, p=0.03).Conclusions: As a collaborative group, the PARITY investigators increased the pace of recruitment throughout the trial, likely by increasing the number of active sites. The longer time to start-up at international sites may be due to the complex governing regulations of pharmaceutical trials. Nevertheless, international sites should be considered essential as they recruited significantly more patients per month once active. The absence of research support personnel may lead to delays in time to start up. The results of the current study will provide guidance for choosing which sites to recruit for participation in future collaborative clinical trials in orthopaedic oncology and other surgical specialties.

show abstract

Has the Level of Evidence of Podium Presentations at the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Annual Meeting Changed Over Time?

Cited by 13 publications

References 50 publications

Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings

Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings

Recruitment patterns in a large international randomized controlled trial of perioperative care in cancer patients

Recruitment patterns in a large international randomized controlled trial of perioperative care in cancer patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About