Radhakrishnan Ramchandren1, Charles A Schiffer2. 1. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI ramchanr@karmanos.org. 2. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The major large US hematology-oncology meetings sponsored by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have specific guidelines in place discouraging submission of scientific information presented previously at other meetings. Nonetheless, duplicate submissions are frequent. The incidence and motivations for duplicate hematologic presentations and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on this process have not been thoroughly analyzed. Therefore, were viewed four consecutive ASH and ASCO meetings to assess the frequency of duplicate abstract presentations. METHODS: All abstracts presented at ASCO2010 in the area of malignant hematology were compared with abstracts from ASCO and ASH 2009 and ASH 2010, and funding sources were reviewed. RESULTS: More than half (54%) of all abstracts submitted to ASCO 2010 acknowledged pharmaceutical company support. Almost one third (31%) of ASCO 2010 abstracts were resubmitted in the 2-year time period, and it was notable that a high fraction (75%) of these duplicate abstracts had pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, compared with 42% of the abstracts that were submitted only once. CONCLUSION: Despite current guidelines prohibiting duplicate abstract presentation, a substantial proportion (31%) of abstracts at large international hematology-oncology meetings are duplicative, with potential negative consequences. In addition, a disproportionate percentage of the duplicate abstracts rely on pharmaceutical industry support (75%), suggesting that marketing strategies may be a motivation for some of these repetitive submissions.
PURPOSE: The major large US hematology-oncology meetings sponsored by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) have specific guidelines in place discouraging submission of scientific information presented previously at other meetings. Nonetheless, duplicate submissions are frequent. The incidence and motivations for duplicate hematologic presentations and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on this process have not been thoroughly analyzed. Therefore, were viewed four consecutive ASH and ASCO meetings to assess the frequency of duplicate abstract presentations. METHODS: All abstracts presented at ASCO2010 in the area of malignant hematology were compared with abstracts from ASCO and ASH 2009 and ASH 2010, and funding sources were reviewed. RESULTS: More than half (54%) of all abstracts submitted to ASCO 2010 acknowledged pharmaceutical company support. Almost one third (31%) of ASCO 2010 abstracts were resubmitted in the 2-year time period, and it was notable that a high fraction (75%) of these duplicate abstracts had pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, compared with 42% of the abstracts that were submitted only once. CONCLUSION: Despite current guidelines prohibiting duplicate abstract presentation, a substantial proportion (31%) of abstracts at large international hematology-oncology meetings are duplicative, with potential negative consequences. In addition, a disproportionate percentage of the duplicate abstracts rely on pharmaceutical industry support (75%), suggesting that marketing strategies may be a motivation for some of these repetitive submissions.