HOW OFTEN ARE ABSTRACTS PRESENTED AT EYE AND VISION CONFERENCES DEVELOPED INTO FULL LENGTH PUBLICATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Author(s)
E JY1, Ramulu P2, Fapohunda K1, Li T3, Scherer R1
1Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 3University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
OBJECTIVES: Over half of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences fail to be published in full, resulting in a waste time and resources. Here, we systematically review reports evaluating the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision meetings that are subsequently published in full, and investigate factors associated with publication. METHODS: We included reports that examined the proportion of abstracts initially presented at eye and vision meetings that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals after 24 months or more. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, reference lists of included reports, and author files. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, abstracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. We conducted (1) a meta-analysis to determine the proportion of abstracts published in full and (2) a meta-analysis to assess factors associated with subsequent full publication. RESULTS: We found 19 reports, covering 12,261 abstracts, presented at 11 unique eye and vision meetings. One report was considered to have a high risk of bias overall, and most (12/19) were at high risk of bias for at least one design component. The overall weighted proportion of abstracts published in full was 38.0% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 31.7%, 44.3%). Among reports restricted to abstracts describing randomized trials, it was 54.9% (95% CI: 34.6%, 73.7%). Nine reports investigated the proportion of abstracts subsequently published by ophthalmic subspecialties, ranging from 28.3% (95% CI: 17.2%, 42.9%, oculoplastics) to 42.7% (95% CI: 34.7%, 51.0%, glaucoma). Oral presentation and basic science research were significantly associated with higher full publication; while factors not significantly associated with full publication included ‘positive’ results, randomized controlled trial versus other study design, multi-center study, and industry funding. CONCLUSIONS: More than 60% of abstracts presented at eye and vision meetings were not published in full within two years of meeting presentation.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2020-05, ISPOR 2020, Orlando, FL, USA
Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue 5, S1 (May 2020)
Code
PNS181
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Organizational Practices
Topic Subcategory
Academic & Educational, Best Research Practices, Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Performance-based Outcomes
Disease
No Specific Disease