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

McKelvey 2010.

Methods Identification of subsequent full‐length publications

  • Searched electronic database

    • PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to March 2008

    • Search completed by investigator

    • Searched by all authors, keywords, and relevant MeSH term, if available

    • Matched abstract to full‐length publication by

      • One author

      • Project objective
Data

  • Included 272 abstracts presented at the 1981, 1991, and 2001 Southeastern Residency Conference meetings

  • Included only abstracts of pharmacy resident projects
Comparisons

  • Proportion of abstracts published, overall and by meeting

  • Median time to publication overall and by meeting

  • RCT versus CCT versus observational study versus case report versus topic review design

  • Physician co‐author versus not

  • Reporting results versus not
Outcomes

  • 43 of 272 abstracts published

  • 18/90 abstracts presented at the 1981 meeting, 11/70 at the 1991 meeting, and 14/112 at the 2001 meeting published

  • Proportion of abstracts published by time

    • Median time to publication = 22.8 months (maximum = 60.9 months)

    • Median time to publication = 22 months (IQR = 13 to 25 months) for 1981 Southeastern Residency Conference meeting

    • Median time to publication = 33 months (IQR = 22 to 39 months) for 1991 Southeastern Residency Conference meeting

    • Median time to publication = 24 months (IQR = 20 to 28 months) for 2001 Southeastern Residency Conference meeting

  • Factors related to proportion of abstracts published included

    • 12/48 abstracts with RCT design versus 9/71 abstracts with CCT design versus 15/78 abstracts with observational study design versus 6/30 abstracts with case report design versus 1/45 abstracts of topic review published

    • 13/52 abstracts with a physician co‐author listed versus 30/220 abstracts without a physician co‐author or not reported published

    • 18/67 abstracts reporting results versus 25/205 abstracts not reporting results published
Notes

  • Pharmacology ‐ residents

  • Funding not reported
Risk of bias
Item Authors' judgement Description
Sampling method? Yes Included all abstracts that described specific subgroup, so low risk of bias.
Search for publications? Yes Searched 2 databases.
Follow‐up time? Yes All meetings had at least 7 years follow‐up.
Matching? Yes Matched by 2 different criteria.
Adjustment for confounding? No Examined association of meeting year, study design, physician co‐author, and report of results in abstract with publication using stratified analysis. Stated that numbers were too small to perform statistical testing.