Methods |
Identification of subsequent full‐length publications
|
Data |
|
Comparisons |
Proportion of abstracts published
'Positive' versus not 'positive'
Clinical research versus basic science research
RCT design versus observational versus case series versus other design
North American versus European versus Australian versus Asian versus Oceanian origin
|
Outcomes |
62 of 200 abstracts published
Proportion of abstracts published by time not reported
-
Factors related to proportion of abstracts published included
12/24 'positive' (defined as significant results) versus 50/176 not 'positive' abstract results published
45/132 'positive' (defined as experimental better than control) versus 17/68 not 'positive' abstract results published
40/159 abstracts describing clinical research versus 22/41 abstracts describing basic science research published
1/3 abstracts with RCT design versus 17/41 abstracts with observational study design versus 31/103 abstracts with case series design versus 13/53 with other design published
21/55 abstracts originating from North America versus 5/19 abstracts from Europe versus 32/110 abstracts from Australia versus 4/11 abstracts from Asia versus 0/5 abstracts from Oceania published
|
Notes |
|
Risk of bias |
Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
Sampling method? |
Yes |
Included all abstracts accepted as oral presentations |
Search for publications? |
Yes |
Searched 2 databases and contacted abstract authors. |
Follow‐up time? |
Yes |
The meeting had 6 years follow‐up. |
Matching? |
Unclear |
Matching criteria not reported. |
Adjustment for confounding? |
Yes |
Examined association of positive results, type science, study design, and country of origin using multivariable logistic regression analysis. |