Halpern 2002.

Methods	Identification of subsequent full‐length publications Searched electronic database Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to April 2000 Search completed by investigator Searched by first, and senior authors, and keywords Matching criteria not reported Searched author's personal files
Data	Included 145 abstracts presented at 1994 and 1995 American Society of Anesthesiologists meetings Included all abstracts related to obstetrical anesthesia
Comparisons	Proportion of abstracts published Mean time to publication 'Positive' versus not 'positive' Clinical research versus basic science research RCT design versus non‐RCT design Peer‐reviewed funding versus none
Outcomes	51 of 145 abstracts published 9 full publications found and excluded, including 3 abstracts published at another meeting; 4 articles that did not match abstract content, although titles were similar; 1 which was a review of the abstract as published in another journal; and 1 abstract that was a description of the methodology subsequently used in another published manuscript Proportion of abstracts published by time Mean time to publication = 28 months (SD = 17) Factors related to proportion of abstracts published included 29/83 'positive' (defined as significant results) versus 9/47 not 'positive' abstract results published 40/113 abstracts describing clinical research versus 11/32 abstracts describing basic science research published 21/47 abstracts with RCT design versus 30/98 abstracts with non‐RCT design published 9/51 abstracts with peer‐reviewed funding versus 7/94 abstracts without peer‐reviewed funding published
Notes	Gynecology/obstetrics ‐ obstetrical anesthesia Funding from "departmental sources" Author provided unpublished manuscript
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Sampling method?	Yes	Included all abstracts that described a specific topic, so low risk of bias.
Search for publications?	Yes	Searched 3 databases and author's personal files.
Follow‐up time?	Yes	All meetings had at least 5 years follow‐up.
Matching?	Unclear	Matching criteria not reported.
Adjustment for confounding?	No	Examined association of positive results, type science, and funding status with publication using stratified analysis and Chi2 tests.