Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts
Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for thos...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews Ročník 11; s. MR000005 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
England
20.11.2018
|
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X, 1469-493X |
| On-line přístup: | Zjistit podrobnosti o přístupu |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.
To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).
We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.
Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.
Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.
More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.BACKGROUNDAbstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.OBJECTIVESTo systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).SEARCH METHODSWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.SELECTION CRITERIAWe included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISTwo review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.MAIN RESULTSCombining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSMore than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care. To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007). We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined. More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way. |
| Author | Meerpohl, Joerg J von Elm, Erik Schwarzer, Guido Scherer, Roberta W Schmucker, Christine Pfeifer, Nadine |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Roberta W surname: Scherer fullname: Scherer, Roberta W organization: Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Room W6138, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21205 – sequence: 2 givenname: Joerg J surname: Meerpohl fullname: Meerpohl, Joerg J – sequence: 3 givenname: Nadine surname: Pfeifer fullname: Pfeifer, Nadine – sequence: 4 givenname: Christine surname: Schmucker fullname: Schmucker, Christine – sequence: 5 givenname: Guido surname: Schwarzer fullname: Schwarzer, Guido – sequence: 6 givenname: Erik surname: von Elm fullname: von Elm, Erik |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30480762$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNj0tLAzEUhYNU7EP_Qpmlm6l5TSYBN1KsChVBunA35M4kEMk8nCSL_nuntIJ3cy_fPefAWaJZ13cGoTXBG4IxfSBcFEQWcvP-iU9TbIYE_AotpofKuWJfs3_3HC1D-MaYKULkDZozzCUuBV2gx13yPpu83tU6ur7LepuNJiQfQ-Y6F532_pgNEzJdNM3EMg0hjrqO4RZdW-2DubvsFTrsng_b13z_8fK2fdrnNVeE59wa0NpyqBsBQjElFEApRUktU9aCBrBUl9wwYJQQC5gKwgAkE5yVkq7Q_Tl2GPufZEKsWhdq473uTJ9CRQmTguMCn6TrizRBa5pqGF2rx2P1V5j-At89W-E |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1080_0142159X_2023_2244661 crossref_primary_10_1002_jca_22108 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_034635 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_072446 crossref_primary_10_1080_0194262X_2019_1620150 crossref_primary_10_1159_000505703 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_021_01359_x crossref_primary_10_1245_s10434_025_17975_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11606_021_06999_9 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41415_019_0421_5 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10620_023_07888_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12630_021_02005_2 crossref_primary_10_1017_rsm_2025_10033 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00112_023_01891_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ebiom_2022_104250 crossref_primary_10_4274_jus_galenos_2025_2024_12_2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00428_024_03923_4 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41390_020_01182_y crossref_primary_10_1177_08465371231210473 crossref_primary_10_1038_d41586_024_02383_9 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD015877 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_2275_3555 crossref_primary_10_20518_tjph_884208 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12020_020_02567_z crossref_primary_10_1001_jama_2023_10568 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD015875 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_trre_2023_100792 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10620_021_07247_0 crossref_primary_10_1080_08989621_2025_2521083 crossref_primary_10_1111_bcp_15574 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00467_023_06118_2 crossref_primary_10_3389_fsurg_2021_683359 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_019_0928_y crossref_primary_10_3389_fcomm_2023_1063345 crossref_primary_10_3389_fimmu_2022_855309 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD005105_pub3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_022_02048_6 crossref_primary_10_2147_IJGM_S411687 crossref_primary_10_3389_fneur_2022_847444 crossref_primary_10_2196_42789 crossref_primary_10_3389_fnbeh_2022_805661 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jmir_2023_03_026 crossref_primary_10_3928_01913913_20210708_04 crossref_primary_10_6087_kcse_348 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_024_07865_9 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40670_022_01657_z crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_032701 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_MR000011_pub3 crossref_primary_10_1002_cl2_1433 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_023_02270_w crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD011800_pub2 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40463_022_00606_5 crossref_primary_10_1245_s10434_025_17852_2 crossref_primary_10_12998_wjcc_v9_i1_102 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub4 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 30480762 |
| Genre | Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4914-4febaaf4bcd6b693969bb78672f39ffbabbf2a74e3b3211fb02613bb83643782 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 110 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000455159600040&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1469-493X |
| IngestDate | Thu Oct 02 05:52:05 EDT 2025 Thu Jan 02 22:33:33 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4914-4febaaf4bcd6b693969bb78672f39ffbabbf2a74e3b3211fb02613bb83643782 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
| PMID | 30480762 |
| PQID | 2138640508 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2138640508 pubmed_primary_30480762 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2018-11-20 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2018-11-20 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 11 year: 2018 text: 2018-11-20 day: 20 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2018 |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.6663902 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | MR000005 |
| SubjectTerms | Abstracting and Indexing - statistics & numerical data Congresses as Topic Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data Publication Bias Publishing - statistics & numerical data Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data Time Factors |
| Title | Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30480762 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2138640508 |
| Volume | 11 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000455159600040&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3PS8MwFA7qRLz4-8f8RQSvdW2SNgkIIuLw4MYOO_RW8tIEBqOtdhP8703azp0EwUsPgULzeEm_9758-RC645JEysQ8YJxAwIjmAchIB0rEJIGQWEIbofAbH49FmspJ13Cru2OVqz2x2ajzUvse-YBEVCQOXYTisXoPvGuUZ1c7C41N1KMOyvis5ukPi0DdQhatusg7qdF0pRAOySDyHuAiFvejxnEtjP302e8ws_ndDPf_-6EHaK8DmvipzYxDtGGKI7Qz6qj0Y_Tgi09crbt2uLTY1d7L-aLGM3-kSM3nX7hq5Ukmd2NYgW-M6EV9gqbDl-nza9BZKQSayYgFzBpQyjLQeQKJpDKRAFwknFgqrQUFYInizFCgriS04EszCiCoJ_YEOUVbRVmYc4RBECZCxZhxhZa_rU8KljsQJTUhkY5VH92uwpK5TPX0gypMuayzdWD66KyNbVa1V2pktJG2J-TiD29fol2HWoQXBJLwCvWsW6fmGm3rz8Ws_rhpUsA9x5PRN1pSuX4 |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Full+publication+of+results+initially+presented+in+abstracts&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Scherer%2C+Roberta+W&rft.au=Meerpohl%2C+Joerg+J&rft.au=Pfeifer%2C+Nadine&rft.au=Schmucker%2C+Christine&rft.date=2018-11-20&rft.issn=1469-493X&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.volume=11&rft.spage=MR000005&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000005.pub4&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |