Publication Rates for Abstracts Presented by Korean Investigators at Major Radiology Meetings

Abstract

Objective: To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented by Korean investigators at national and international radiological meetings, and to identify predictive factors of publication. Materials and Methods:Abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Korean Radiological Society (KRS), and abstracts presented by Korean investigators at the annual meetings of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) and European Congress of Radiology (ECR) from 2001 to 2002 were searched for subsequent publication, using PubMed and the Korean Medical Database. The following variables were evaluated. 1) The overall publication rate; 2) the publication rates according to the radiological subspecialty, presentation type (oral or poster), sample size ( 20, 21 50, or > 50), study design (prospective or retrospective), statistical analysis (present or absent), and study outcome (positive or negative); 3) the time to publication; 4) the journal where the study was published; 5) consistency between the abstract and the final publication.Results: Of 1,097 abstracts, 301 (27.4%) were subsequently published, at an average of 15.8 13.8 months after presentation in 48 journals. The publication rates for studies presented at the RSNA (35.4%) and ECR (50.5%) conferences were significantly higher than that for the KRS conference (23.6%, p < 0.05). Vascular/interventional radiology studies had the highest publication rate (33.1%), whereas musculoskeletal radiology studies had the lowest publication rate (17.1%). Other factors associated with subsequent publication were prospective design, use of statistical testing, and a positive study outcome. Conclusion:The publication rate is significantly lower for the KRS (23.6%) meeting abstracts as compared to those of the RSNA (35.4%) and ECR (50.5%). Prospective design, use of statistical testing, and positive study outcome have a statistically significant effect on the publication rate.resentations at national and international meetings provide an important forum for the dissemination of current research findings to the scientific community. Subsequent publication in a scientific journal is the natural and final outcome of such presentations, where the investigation is subjected to exhaustive manuscript preparation, extensive analysis of results, and critical peer review process. The publication rate of presentations may be regarded as an indicator of the quality of the scientific research presented at the meeting (1 6) and of the country where the research was performed (7 9).However, the publication rate of presentations have ranged from 11% to 78% depending on medical specialty, with an average of 45% (1); these findings suggest that more than half of all abstracts are not fully published in scientific journals after

The fate of abstracts presented at Turkish national radiology congresses in 2010-2012

“…In a survey of the literature, the publication rate of papers from a variety of specialties ranged between 8.5% and 78% (6). Worldwide, only a few investigations exist concerning radiology meetings, which report rates ranging 11%-47% (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8). According to a study evaluating Turkish radiology meetings in years 1995-2002, the overall publication rate was 11% (1).…”

“…Abstract presentations at national meetings allow a rapid transfer of knowledge in summarizing current research and focusing future research endeavors (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). In spite of the fact that many studies are of sufficient value for presentation in these sessions, only the most instructive and highest quality studies are worthy of full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal (2).…”

Analysis of subsequent publication of scientific orally presented abstracts of the French national congress of radiology. Part I: General characteristics

“…Moreover, experimental research is often performed by academic trainees working in active research teams. Therefore, it may encourage them to subsequently publish their results [11]. However, others have reported opposite results [2,7,10].…”

“…Some of these could be interpreted as a sign of more intense scientific commitment. Indeed, a prospective design generally indicates a clear effort towards more thorough studies, and has been already reported [10,11,15,16]. Moreover, experimental research is often performed by academic trainees working in active research teams.…”

“…Hence, some authors suggested that the rate of publication of orally presented scientific abstracts might constitute an interesting criterion [1]. Regarding radiology meetings, several investigations reported publication rates ranging from 8% to 47% [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].…”