Meral 2016.

Methods	Identification of subsequent full‐length publications Searched electronic database PubMed until May 18, 2015 Person completing the search not reported Searched by all authors and keywords Matched abstract to full‐length publication by Sample size Methodology Results Hypothesis
Data	Included 1368 abstracts presented at the 2008 to 2011 European Society for Surgical Research meetings Included all abstracts
Comparisons	Proportion of abstracts published, overall and by meeting Mean time to publication, overall, by meeting and type of presentation Oral versus poster presentation Clinical versus experimental research Case report design versus review versus clinical study versus experimental study European versus Japanese versus rest of the world origin Very high versus high versus medium/low level of country development Prospective versus retrospective design
Outcomes	559 of 1368 abstracts published 146/341 abstracts presented at the 2008 meeting, 156/304 at the 2009 meeting, 155/476 at the 2010 meeting, and 102/247 at the 2011 meeting published Proportion of abstracts published by time Mean time to publication = 17.5 months (range = ‐166 to 82 months), overall Mean time to publication = 23.2 months (range = ‐59 to 82 months), for the 2008 meeting Mean time to publication = 16.1 months (range = ‐60 to 67 months), for the 2009 meeting Mean time to publication = 15.3 months (range = ‐89 to 55 months), for the 2010 meeting Mean time to publication = 14.8 months (range = ‐166 to 46 months), for the 2011 meeting Mean time to publication = 19.1 months (SD = 20.7), for oral presentations Mean time to publication = 14.0 months (SD = 25.2), for poster presentations Factors related to proportion of abstracts published included 391/803 abstracts presented orally versus 168/565 abstracts presented as poster published 252/737 abstracts describing clinical research versus 279/514 abstracts describing 'experimental' research published 17/87 abstracts with case report design versus 11/29 abstracts describing a review versus 252/737 abstracts describing clinical studies versus 279/514 abstracts describing 'experimental' studies published 417/1051 abstracts originating from Europe versus 33/98 abstracts originating from Japan versus 109/219 abstracts with rest of the world origin published 496/1115 abstracts originating from country with very high development level versus 53/230 abstracts originating from country with high development level versus 10/20 abstracts originating from country with medium/low development level published 436/939 abstracts describing a prospective design versus 123/429 abstracts describing a retrospective design published
Notes	Surgery Funding not reported
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Sampling method?	Yes	Included all abstracts.
Search for publications?	No	Searched only 1 database.
Follow‐up time?	Yes	All meetings had at least 48 months follow‐up.
Matching?	Yes	Matched by 4 different criteria.
Adjustment for confounding?	No	Examined association of meeting year, type presentation, type science, study design, country of origin, economic status of country of origin, and prospective status with publication using stratified analysis and Chi2 , Fisher's Exact test, t tests, or ANOVA.