PubMed · 8266119
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Y C Chee. 1993. Abstracts restructured.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8266119/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
CONTEXT: 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. OBJECTIVE: To identify features associated with the fate of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. DESIGN AND SETTING: 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. PARTICIPANTS: All research abstracts submitted for consideration at the meeting for possible presentation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics associated with acceptance for presentation at the meeting and subsequent publication as a full manuscript. RESULTS: 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%. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
CONTEXT: It is not known whether peer review of research abstracts submitted to scientific meetings influences subsequent attempts at publication. OBJECTIVE: To determine why research submitted to a scientific meeting is not subsequently published. We hypothesized that authors of abstracts rejected by a meeting are less likely to pursue publication than those whose abstracts are accepted, regardless of research quality. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Blinded review of abstracts submitted to a medical specialty meeting in 1991 and not published as full manuscripts within 5 years. In 1996, authors of 266 unpublished studies were asked to complete questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Submission of a full manuscript to a journal between 1991 and 1996; failure to submit a manuscript to a journal because the investigator believed it would not be accepted for publication. RESULTS: A total of 223 (84%) of the unpublished investigators returned the questionnaire. Only 44 (20%) had submitted manuscripts to a journal. Manuscript submission was not associated with abstract quality (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.64), positive results (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.31-1.57), or other study characteristics. Having an abstract accepted for presentation at the meeting weakly predicted submission of a manuscript to a journal (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.84-4.10). Authors of accepted abstracts were significantly less likely to believe a journal would not publish their manuscript than were authors of rejected abstracts (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.0001-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Study characteristics do not predict attempts to publish research submitted to a scientific meeting. Investigators whose research is rejected by a meeting are pessimistic about chances for publication and may make less effort to publish.
CONTEXT: The most-read section of a research article is the abstract, and therefore it is especially important that the abstract be accurate. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that providing authors with specific instructions about abstract accuracy will result in improved accuracy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention specifying 3 types of common defects in abstracts of articles that had been reviewed and were being returned to the authors with an invitation to revise. MEAN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of abstracts containing 1 or more of the following defects: inconsistency in data between abstract and body of manuscript (text, tables, and figures), data or other information given in abstract but not in body, and/or conclusions not justified by information in the abstract. RESULTS: Of 250 manuscripts randomized, 13 were never revised and 34 were lost to follow-up, leaving a final comparison between 89 in the intervention group and 114 in the control group. Abstracts were defective in 25 (28%) and 30 (26%) cases, respectively (P=.78). Among 55 defective abstracts, 28 (51%) had inconsistencies, 16 (29%) contained data not present in the body, 8 (15%) had both types of defects, and 3 (5%) contained unjustified conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Defects in abstracts, particularly inconsistencies between abstract and body and the presentation of data in abstract but not in body, occur frequently. Specific instructions to authors who are revising their manuscripts are ineffective in lowering this rate. Journals should include in their editing processes specific and detailed attention to abstracts.