The fate of research abstracts submitted to a national surgical conference: a cross-sectional study to assess scientific impact

Conference abstracts often lack rigorous peer review, but potentially influence clinical thinking and practice. To evaluate the quality of abstracts submitted to a large surgical conference, presentation and publication rates were investigated to assess scientific impact. A Cross-sectional study of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American journal of surgery Vol. 211; no. 1; pp. 166 - 171
Main Authors: de Meijer, Vincent E., Knops, Simon P., van Dongen, Joris A., Eyck, Ben M., Vles, Wouter J.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.01.2016
Elsevier Limited
Subjects:
5-Year abstract-to-publication ratio
Abstracting and Indexing as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Algorithms
Authorship
Bibliometrics
Conferences
Confidence intervals
Congresses as Topic
Cross-Sectional Studies
Gastrointestinal surgery
General Surgery
Humans
Impact factors
Journal Impact Factor
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Meetings
Netherlands
Proportional Hazards Models
Publication bias
Publication rate
Publishing - statistics & numerical data
Quality
Research abstract
Scientific conference
Societies, Medical
Software
Studies
Surgery
Surgical research
Survival analysis
Vascular surgery
Netherlands
Research abstract
Surgical research
Publication bias
5-Year abstract-to-publication ratio
Scientific conference
Publication rate
ISSN:0002-9610, 1879-1883, 1879-1883
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Conference abstracts often lack rigorous peer review, but potentially influence clinical thinking and practice. To evaluate the quality of abstracts submitted to a large surgical conference, presentation and publication rates were investigated to assess scientific impact. A Cross-sectional study of abstracts submitted to Dutch Surgical Society meetings from 2007 to 2012 was conducted. Presentation rates, publication rates in MEDLINE-indexed journals using PubMed Central database, and actuarial times to subsequent publication were investigated. Of 2,174 submitted abstracts, 1,305 (60%) abstracts were accepted for presentation. Actuarial 1, 3, and 5-year publication rates were 22.4%, 62.2%, and 68.6% for presented abstracts, compared with 20.9%, 50.3%, and 57.7% for rejected abstracts, respectively (log-rank x2 23.728, df1, P < .001). Publications resulting from abstracts presented at the conference had a significantly higher mean (±standard error) impact factor (4.4 ± .2 vs 3.4 ± .1, P < .001), compared with publications from previously rejected abstracts. We advocate critical appraisal of the use of findings of scientific abstracts and conference presentations. The 5-year abstract-to-publication ratio is proposed as a novel quality indicator to allow objective comparison between scientific meetings. •Abstract presentation and publication rates were investigated to assess impact.•Two thirds of 2,174 submitted abstracts went on to full publication.•Presented research was published more timely and in journals with higher impact.•Scientific abstracts and conference presentations need critical appraisal.•The 5-year abstract-to-publication ratio is proposed as novel quality indicator.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0002-9610
1879-1883
1879-1883
DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.06.017