Abstract
Introduction
The timely and formal publication of material presented as abstracts at national meetings is critical to the dissemination of new information to the medical community. We designed a retrospective study to evaluate the publication rates of abstracts presented at a recent national toxicology conference. In addition, we attempted to determine whether readily identifiable characteristics could predict a greater likelihood of publication.
Methods
In June of 2004, we reviewed 237 abstracts from the 2001 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT). Abstracts were classified according to methodology and content. We then searched Medline, using PubMed, to determine the publication of each abstract.
Results
Fifty-seven of 237 abstracts (24.1%) were subsequently published in peer reviewed journals. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of publication when abstracts were categorized with respect to methodology. When categorized with respect to content, abstracts related to natural toxins had a higher publication rate (41.2%; p < 0.05).
Conclusions
Three years after presenting abstracts at the 2001 NACCT meeting, the majority of abstracts remain unpublished. This is a lower rate than noted by other specialty medical societies.
Keywords: abstract, publication, rate, national, meetings
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (118.9 KB).
References
- 1.Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Wiontkowski MF, Spraque S, Schemitsch EH. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:615–621. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200204000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Riordan FA. Do presenters to paediatric meetings get their work published? Arch Dis Child. 2000;83:524–526. doi: 10.1136/adc.83.6.524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Carrol AE, Sox CM, Tarini BA, Ringold S, Christakis DA. Does presentation format at the Pediatric Academic Societies’ annual meeting predict subsequent publication? Pediatrics. 2003;112:1238–1241. doi: 10.1542/peds.112.6.1238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Eloubeidi MA, Wade SB, Provenzale D. Factors associated with acceptance and full publication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:275–282. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(01)70398-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Roy D, Sankar V, Hughes JP, Jones A, Fenton JE. Publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society meetings. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2001;26:253–256. doi: 10.1046/j.0307-7772.2001.00467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gorman RL, Oderda GM. Publication of presented abstracts at annual scientific meetings: A measure of quality? Vet Hum Toxicol. 1990;32:470–472. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]