Vincent E de Meijer1, Simon P Knops2, Joris A van Dongen3, Ben M Eyck3, Wouter J Vles2. 1. Department of Surgery, Ikazia Hospital Rotterdam, Montessoriweg 1, Rotterdam, 3083AN The Netherlands. Electronic address: v.demeijer@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Ikazia Hospital Rotterdam, Montessoriweg 1, Rotterdam, 3083AN The Netherlands. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 x(2) 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 x(2) 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Heidi M Egloff; Colin P West; Amy T Wang; Katie M Lowe; Jithinraj Edakkanambeth Varayil; Thomas J Beckman; Adam P Sawatsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Cecilia Scholcoff; Payal Sanghani; Wilkins Jackson; Heidi M Egloff; Adam P Sawatsky; Jeffrey L Jackson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Roberta W Scherer; Joerg J Meerpohl; Nadine Pfeifer; Christine Schmucker; Guido Schwarzer; Erik von Elm Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-11-20