Fate of Abstracts Presented at the Saudi Ophthalmology Society Conferences 2015–2018

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The aim of the study was to determine the publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual Saudi Ophthalmology Society (SOS) Conferences from 2015 to 2018.

METHODS:

This is a cross-sectional study on abstracts collected from the scientific programs for the SOS meetings from 2015 to 2018. Titles and first authors' names were used in the search process on PubMed. A Chi-square test was conducted to compare between the categorical variables. Kruskal–Wallis test was used for nonnormally distributed variables.

RESULTS:

A total of 365 abstracts were presented in the SOS Conferences from 2015 to 2018. In the SOS meetings (2015–2018), the publication rate was 45.7%. Seventy-two (43.1%) of the published abstracts were published in journals with an impact factor. The mean impact factor was 1.4 ± 1.9. The median time to publication was 12.0 months (range: 0–60 months). On univariate analysis, basic science ( P < 0.001), abstracts on rare diseases ( P = 0.003), affiliation with eye hospitals ( P < 0.001), and public hospitals (0.007) were associated with a higher publication rate. On multivariate analysis, basic science studies (odds ratio [OR]: 4.23, confidence interval [CI]: 1.77–10.12, P = 0.001), rare topic-related abstracts (OR: 2.03, CI: 1.22–3.38, P = 0.007), and eye center affiliation (OR: 1.67, CI: 1.03–2.68, P = 0.036) were associated with a better publication rate. The factors associated with publication in high impact factor journals were oral abstracts ( P = 0.007) and noncase report abstracts ( P = 0.023).

CONCLUSION:

Basic science studies, rare topic-related abstracts, and first author affiliation with an eye center were all associated with a higher publication rate. Orally presented and noncase report abstracts increased the chance of publication in higher impact factor journals.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.

R W Scherer, P Langenberg, E. von Elm (2007)

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of abstract results is based on the magnitude or direction of study results, publication bias may result. Publication bias, in turn, creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence. To determine the rate at which abstract results are subsequently published in full, and the time between meeting presentation and full publication. To assess the association between study characteristics and full publication. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. Date of most recent search: June 2003. We included all reports that examined the subsequent full publication rate of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form. Follow-up of abstracts had to be at least two years. Two reviewers extracted data. We calculated the weighted mean full publication rate and time to full publication. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using relative risk and random effects models. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Combining data from 79 reports (29,729 abstracts) resulted in a weighted mean full publication rate of 44.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43.9 to 45.1). Survival analyses resulted in an estimated publication rate at 9 years of 52.6% for all studies, 63.1% for randomized or controlled clinical trials, and 49.3% for other types of study designs.'Positive' results defined as any 'significant' result showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.30; CI 1.14 to 1.47), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; CI 1.02 to 1.35), and 'positive' results emanating from randomized or controlled clinical trials (RR = 1.18, CI 1.07 to 1.30). Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.28; CI 1.09 to 1.49); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.78; CI 1.50 to 2.12); randomized trial study design (RR = 1.24; CI 1.14 to 1.36); and basic research (RR = 0.79; CI 0.70 to 0.89). Higher quality of abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials was also associated with full publication (RR = 1.30, CI 1.00 to 1.71). Only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full. 'Positive' results were more frequently published than not 'positive' results.

0 comments Cited 112 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review.

Roberta Scherer, Cesar Ugarte-Gil, Christine Schmucker … (2015)

To systematically review reports that queried abstract authors about reasons for not subsequently publishing abstract results as full-length articles.

0 comments Cited 53 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.

M L Callaham, R L Wears, E J Weber … (1998)

Studies with positive results are more likely to be published in biomedical journals than are studies with negative results. However, many studies submitted for consideration at scientific meetings are never published in full; bias in this setting is poorly studied. To identify features associated with the fate of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. Prospective observational cohort, with 5-year follow-up of all research submitted for consideration to the major annual 1991 US research meeting in the specialty of emergency medicine. All research abstracts submitted for consideration at the meeting for possible presentation. Characteristics associated with acceptance for presentation at the meeting and subsequent publication as a full manuscript. A total of 492 research abstracts were submitted from programs in emergency medicine and other specialties affiliated with 103 US medical schools. A total of 179 (36%) were accepted for presentation and 214 (43%) were published in 44 journals. Of the 179 abstracts accepted for presentation, 111 studies were published. Scientific quality of abstracts or prestige of the journal in which the study was eventually published did not predict either of these outcomes. The best predictors (by logistic regression) of meeting acceptance were a subjective "originality" factor (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.89) and positive results (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.07-3.84), and, for publication, meeting acceptance (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.49-4.35) and large sample size (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.23-4.31). Forty-nine percent (241) of abstracts did not report on blinding, and 24% (118) did not report on randomization. Acceptance and publication were both more likely for positive outcomes (P=.03). Funnel plots showed the classic distribution of positive-outcome ("publication") bias at each of the submission, acceptance, and publication phases. Meeting acceptance predicted publication with a sensitivity of only 51%, specificity of 71%, positive predictive value of 57%, and negative predictive value of 66%. Positive-outcome bias was evident when studies were submitted for consideration and was amplified in the selection of abstracts for both presentation and publication, neither of which was strongly related to study design or quality.

0 comments Cited 48 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol

Journal ID (publisher-id): MEAJO

Title: Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology

Publisher: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow (India )

ISSN (Print): 0974-9233

ISSN (Electronic): 0975-1599

Publication date Collection: Jan-Mar 2022

Publication date (Electronic): 23 November 2022

Volume: 29

Issue: 1

Pages: 33-37

Affiliations

[1 ] College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

[2 ] Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

[3 ] Princess Nourah Bint Abdul Rahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

[4 ] Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

[5 ] Department of Ophthalmology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Author notes

Address for correspondence: Dr. Waleed K. Alsarhani, Department of Ophthalmology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: WAlsarhani@ 123456gmail.com

Article

Publisher ID: MEAJO-29-33

DOI: 10.4103/meajo.meajo_67_22

PMC ID: 9846960

PubMed ID: 36685348

SO-VID: cbd63566-fd0c-48a8-ab70-c0cfd1df871f

License:

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

History

Date received : 10 March 2022

Date revision received : 23 June 2022

Date accepted : 28 September 2022

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.