More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundIt has been estimated that about 45% of abstracts that are accepted for presentation at biomedical meetings will subsequently be published in full. The acceptance of abstracts at meetings and their fate after initial rejection are less well understood. We set out to estimate the proportion of abstracts submitted to meetings that are eventually published as full reports, and to explore factors that are associated with meeting acceptance and successful publication.MethodsStudies analysing acceptance of abstracts at biomedical meetings or their subsequent full publication were searched in MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and by hand searching of bibliographies and proceedings. We estimated rates of abstract acceptance and of subsequent full publication, and identified abstract and meeting characteristics associated with acceptance and publication, using logistic regression analysis, survival-type analysis, and meta-analysis.ResultsAnalysed meetings were held between 1957 and 1999. Of 14945 abstracts that were submitted to 43 meetings, 46% were accepted. The rate of full publication was studied with 19123 abstracts that were presented at 234 meetings. Using survival-type analysis, we estimated that 27% were published after two, 41% after four, and 44% after six years. Of 2412 abstracts that were rejected at 24 meetings, 27% were published despite rejection. Factors associated with both abstract acceptance and subsequent publication were basic science and positive study outcome. Large meetings and those held outside the US were more likely to accept abstracts. Abstracts were more likely to be published subsequently if presented either orally, at small meetings, or at a US meeting. Abstract acceptance itself was strongly associated with full publication.ConclusionsAbout one third of abstracts submitted to biomedical meetings were published as full reports. Acceptance at meetings and publication were associated with specific characteristics of abstracts and meetings.

Enablers and disablers allowing trainees' abstracts to proceed to full manuscripts: lessons from a large neonatal training program

“…The majority of the previous studies explored the quality of the research project in determining the enablers or disablers of publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals. 29,31 Our results, similar to those published from various subspecialties, indicate that more than half of the trainees' research efforts were presented as abstract form only and did not progress to full manuscript. Most research activities performed by responder trainees were retrospective clinical studies, which are a time-efficient and easy way of answering new questions with existing data but still have a higher tendency for non-publication.…”

The outcome of abstracts presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology annual meetings

“…This rate is comparable with that of other medical The outcome of abstracts presented at the USCAP J Song et al societies with published reports, which typically range from 30 to 50%. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The variation in reported rates may be partly due to different follow-up times, because some studies included publications as far as 5 years after abstract presentation. In a large-scale study, von Elm et al 1 analyzed 19 123 abstracts presented in 234 biomedical meetings from 1957 to 1998, and found the overall publication rates after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years to be 12, 27, 37, 41, and 44% respectively.…”

“…They also found that abstracts from smaller meetings, US-held meetings, and those involving basic science, with positive outcomes, or presented orally were more likely to be published. 1 Similar studies specific for pathology meetings are very rare. Ciesla and Wojcik 2 analyzed cytopathology abstracts presented in 1998 and found a 33% publication rate.…”

“…Numerous studies presented as abstracts at scientific meetings are never published in peerreviewed journals. 1 There are many drawbacks associated with this phenomenon. Abstracts that are not subsequently published as articles may not reach their maximal potential readership, limiting their benefits to the medical community and potentially causing duplicated studies.…”

Fostering an Environment for Research: A Fellow’s Perspective

“…Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately), my seemingly private struggle is actually quite common. There are studies that demonstrate that up to one third of abstracts presented at biomedical meeting are never published as complete articles in peer-reviewed journals [2][3][4]. One study found that some reasons for failure to publish ranged from lack of time to prepare a manuscript (most common reason cited) to lack of participation from co-authors to feelings that the responsibility of writing the manuscript belonged to another co-author [3].…”