Herbison 2004.

Methods	Identification of subsequent full‐length publications Searched electronic database CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, PsychLIT, HealthStar to December 2005 Person completing the search not reported Searched by all authors Matched abstract to full‐length publication by Sample size Contents Contacted abstract authors directly
Data	Included 82 abstracts presented at the 1987, 1998 and 1999 International Continence Society meetings Included all abstracts of randomized controlled trials
Comparisons	Proportion of abstracts published Mean time to publication 'Positive' versus not 'positive' Sample size greater than 100 versus sample size at or below 100 Oral versus poster presentation Presence of allocation concealment versus no or unsure allocation concealment Presence of blinded treatment administrator versus no or unsure treatment administrator Presence of blinded outcome assessor versus no or unsure blinded outcome assessor Proportion of withdrawals Use of placebo Device versus drug versus neither as intervention Use of subjective outcome Multi‐centered versus single center 'Company' funding versus none
Outcomes	41 of 82 abstracts published Proportion of abstracts published by time Mean time to publication = 19.2 months (SD = 9.6) for 1998 and 1999 International Continence Society meetings Factors related to proportion of abstracts published from 1998 and 1999 International Continence Society meetings included 20/49 'positive' (defined as experimental better than control) versus 5/14 not 'positive' abstract results published 14/27 abstracts with sample size greater than 100 versus 10/34 abstracts with sample size of 100 or less published 4/10 abstracts presented orally versus 18/43 abstracts presented as posters published 7/20 abstracts with allocation concealment present versus 18/43 abstracts with no or unsure allocation concealment published 7/21 abstracts with blinded treatment administrator versus 18/42 abstracts with no or unsure treatment administrator published 0/7 abstracts with blinded outcome assessor versus 25/56 abstracts with no or unsure blinded outcome assessor published 11/23 abstracts with multiple centers versus 14/40 abstracts with a single center published 3/16 abstracts with 'company' funding versus 22/47 abstracts without 'company' funding published
Notes	Urology ‐ incontinence Funding by university
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Sampling method?	Yes	Included all abstracts that described specific study design, so low risk of bias.
Search for publications?	Yes	Searched 6 databases and contacted abstract authors.
Follow‐up time?	Yes	All meetings had at least 6 years follow‐up.
Matching?	Yes	Matched by 2 different criteria.
Adjustment for confounding?	No	Examined association of positive results, sample size, type of presentation, multi‐center status, funding status, and presence of blinding for treatment administrator, or outcome assessor, proportion of withdrawals, use of placebo, type intervention, and use of subjective outcome with publication using stratified analysis and Chi2 tests.