Skip to main content
. 2018 Nov 20;2018(11):MR000005. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub4

Ha 2008.

Methods Identification of subsequent full‐length publications

  • Searched electronic database

    • PubMed, Korean medical database to June 2007

    • Search completed by investigator

    • Searched by all authors and keywords

    • Matched abstract to full‐length publication by

      • One author

      • Results
Data

  • Included 1097 abstracts presented at the 2001 and 2002 Korean Radiological Society, Radiological Society of North America, and European Congress of Radiology meetings

  • Included all research abstracts by Korean authors, excluding abstracts of imaging technique, education, or special interest
Comparisons

  • Proportion of abstracts published, overall and by meeting

  • Mean time to publication

  • Cumulative proportion of abstracts published by meeting

  • 'Positive' versus not 'positive'

  • Sample size < 20 versus between 20 and 50 versus > 50

  • Oral versus poster presentation

  • 'Prospective' versus 'retrospective' design

  • With statistical analyses versus without statistical analyses

  • Subspecialty
Outcomes

  • 301 of 1097 abstracts published

  • 43/85 abstracts presented at the 2001 to 2002 European Congress of Radiology meeting, 58/164 at the 2001 to 2002 Radiological Society of North America meetings, and 200/848 of the 2001 to 2002 Korean Radiological Society meetings published

  • Proportion of abstracts published by time

    • Mean time to publication = 15.8 months (SD = 13.8)

    • Cumulative proportion of abstracts published at 48 months showed proportion published = 23.0% (195/848 abstracts) for Korean Radiological Society meetings

    • Cumulative proportion of abstracts published at 48 months showed proportion published = 34.7% (57/164 abstracts) for Radiological Society of North America meetings

    • Cumulative proportion of abstracts published at 48 months showed proportion published = 47.1% (40/85 abstracts) for European Congress of Radiology meetings

  • Factors related to proportion of abstracts published included

    • 288/982 'positive' (defined as experimental better than control) versus 13/115 not 'positive' abstract results published

    • 102/420 abstracts with sample size < 20 versus 100/325 with sample size between 20 and 50 versus 99/352 abstracts with sample size > 50 published

    • 209/732 abstracts presented orally versus 92/365 abstracts presented as posters published

    • 103/308 abstracts with 'prospective' study design versus 198/789 abstracts with 'retrospective' study design published

    • 155/411 abstracts with statistical analyses versus 146/686 abstracts without statistical analyses published
Notes

  • Radiology

  • Funding not reported
Risk of bias
Item Authors' judgement Description
Sampling method? Yes Included all abstracts that described specific subgroup with reasonable exclusions, so low risk of bias.
Search for publications? Yes Searched 2 databases.
Follow‐up time? Yes All meetings had at least 5 years follow‐up.
Matching? Yes Matched by 2 different criteria.
Adjustment for confounding? No Examined association of meeting, positive results, sample size, type presentation, prospective status, presence of statistical analysis, and subspecialty with publication using stratified analysis and Chi2 tests.