The fate of research abstracts submitted to a national surgical conference: a cross-sectional study to assess scientific impact

• Published in: The American journal of surgery Vol. 211; no. 1; pp. 166 - 171
• Main Authors: de Meijer, Vincent E., M.D., Ph.D., M.Sc, Knops, Simon P., M.D., Ph.D, van Dongen, Joris A., B.Sc, Eyck, Ben M., B.Sc, Vles, Wouter J., M.D., Ph.D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 2016; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: 5-Year abstract-to-publication ratio; Abstracting and Indexing as Topic - statistics & numerical data; Algorithms; Authorship; Bibliometrics; Conferences; Confidence intervals; Congresses as Topic; Cross-Sectional Studies; Gastrointestinal surgery; General Surgery; Humans; Impact factors; Journal Impact Factor; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Meetings; Netherlands; Proportional Hazards Models; Publication bias; Publication rate; Publishing - statistics & numerical data; Quality; Research abstract; Scientific conference; Societies, Medical; Software; Studies; Surgery; Surgical research; Survival analysis; Vascular surgery; Netherlands; Research abstract; Surgical research; Publication bias; 5-Year abstract-to-publication ratio; Scientific conference; Publication rate
• ISSN: 0002-9610; 1879-1883
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.06.017

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 x2 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.