Display options
Share it on

Int Arch Med. 2011 Dec 06;4(1):40. doi: 10.1186/1755-7682-4-40.

Frequency and factors influencing publication of abstracts presented at three major nephrology meetings.

International archives of medicine

Ziv Harel, Ron Wald, Ari Juda, Chaim M Bell

Affiliations

  1. Division of Nephrology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. [email protected].

PMID: 22145917 PMCID: PMC3284458 DOI: 10.1186/1755-7682-4-40

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There have been no contemporary studies assessing abstract publication rates and the factors associated with full publication within the field of nephrology. As such, it is unclear whether a publication bias exists for abstracts presented at nephrology meetings, which may hinder the dissemination of potentially important results. Our objective was to review a selection of abstracts presented at 3 major nephrology meetings to determine the proportion that reach full publication and factors associated with full publication.

METHODS: 300 randomly selected abstracts presented as posters at three annual nephrology meetings in 2006 [American Society of Nephrology (ASN), European Renal Association (ERA), and National Kidney Foundation (NKF)] were reviewed. Accepted methods of literature search were performed to determine subsequent journal publication. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between abstract characteristics and subsequent full publication.

RESULTS: 127 (42%) abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals at 4.5 years. On multivariable analysis, basic science research (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.44-5.61 as compared to clinical research) and the scientific meeting [OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.60-5.15 (ASN); OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.07-3.45(ERA) as compared to NKF] were significantly associated with full publication.

CONCLUSIONS: Almost two-fifths of abstracts presented at three major nephrology meetings are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Basic science content and the meeting at which the abstract was presented are associated with publication. Further research is needed to ascertain the impact of other important factors on abstract publication rates to address publication bias in the renal literature.

References

  1. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Aug;135(2):197-203 - PubMed
  2. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002 Dec;19(12):888-93 - PubMed
  3. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul;191(1):32-5 - PubMed
  4. J Urol. 2008 Feb;179(2):667-71; discussion 671-2 - PubMed
  5. ANZ J Surg. 2001 Mar;71(3):167-71 - PubMed
  6. Am J Transplant. 2006 Mar;6(3):552-6 - PubMed
  7. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004 Feb;15(2):411-9 - PubMed
  8. J Paediatr Child Health. 2002 Oct;38(5):501-6 - PubMed
  9. Pancreas. 2001 Aug;23(2):212-5 - PubMed
  10. Stat Med. 1984 Apr-Jun;3(2):143-52 - PubMed
  11. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Mar;53(3):275-82 - PubMed
  12. Arch Dis Child. 2000 Dec;83(6):524-6 - PubMed
  13. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):254-7 - PubMed
  14. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):158-62 - PubMed
  15. JAMA. 1992 Jan 15;267(3):374-8 - PubMed
  16. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Apr;84(4):615-21 - PubMed
  17. Vet Hum Toxicol. 1990 Oct;32(5):470-2 - PubMed
  18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000005 - PubMed
  19. Ophthalmology. 1991 Apr;98(4):553-6 - PubMed
  20. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002 Mar;11(2):105-11 - PubMed
  21. Stroke. 2006 Oct;37(10):2588-92 - PubMed
  22. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Jul 10;3:12 - PubMed
  23. J Rheumatol. 2003 Mar;30(3):597-602 - PubMed
  24. Radiology. 2006 May;239(2):521-8 - PubMed

Publication Types