Klassen 2002.

Methods	Identification of subsequent full‐length publications Searched electronic database CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Current Contents, HealthStar between February and July 2000 Search completed by trained librarian Searched by 'primary' author and keywords Matched abstract to full‐length publication by One common outcome Contacted abstract authors directly (only for subset of authors as reported by Hartling 2004)
Data	Included 447 abstracts presented at the 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 Society for Pediatric Research meetings Included all RCTs identified by handsearching abstract books
Comparisons	Proportion of abstracts published, overall and by meeting Cumulative proportion of abstracts published 'Positive' versus not 'positive' 'Positive' versus not 'positive' for equivalence studies Clinically very important or important versus somewhat important or not important Government versus industry versus foundation versus internal versus no funding Subspecialty
Outcomes	264 of 447 abstracts published 55/95 abstracts presented at the 1992 meeting, 70/109 at the 1993 meeting, 78/128 at the 1994 meeting, and 61/115 at the 1995 meeting published Proportion of abstracts published by time Cumulative proportion of abstracts published at 96 months showed proportion published = 58.1% (255/447 abstracts) Factors related to proportion of abstracts published included 162/235 'positive' (defined as experimental better than control ) versus 93/187 not 'positive' abstract results published 64/77 'positive' (defined as significant results) versus 22/42 not 'positive' abstract results published for subset studied by Hartling 2004 88/115 abstracts considered clinically very important or important versus 31/51 abstracts considered somewhat important or not important published for subset studied by Hartling 2004 32/38 abstracts reporting government funding versus 37/43 abstracts reporting industry funding versus 6/8 abstracts reporting foundation funding versus 4/5 abstracts reporting internal funding versus 32/57 abstracts reporting no funding for subset studied by Hartling 2004
Notes	Pediatrics Funding for study by Hartling by Alberta Heritage Foundation Secondary publication by Hartling 2004 surveyed a subset of authors
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Sampling method?	Yes	Included all RCTs.
Search for publications?	Yes	Searched 7 databases and contacted abstract authors.
Follow‐up time?	Yes	All meetings had at least 5 years follow‐up.
Matching?	No	Matched by only 1 criterion.
Adjustment for confounding?	Yes	Examined association of meeting year, positive results, clinical importance, type funding, and subspecialty with publication using multivariable logistic regression analysis.