Methods |
Identification of subsequent full‐length publications
|
Data |
|
Comparisons |
Proportion of abstracts published
Median time to publication
Survival analysis of publication rate
'Positive' versus not 'positive'
Clinical research versus basic science research versus animal research versus simulation studies
RCT design versus non‐RCT design
|
Outcomes |
377 of 790 abstracts published
-
Proportion of abstracts published by time
-
Factors related to proportion of abstracts published included
185/370 'positive' (defined as significant results) versus 192/420 not 'positive' abstract results published
256/586 abstracts describing clinical research versus 28/43 abstracts describing basic science research versus 78/133 abstracts describing animal research versus 15/28 abstracts describing simulation studies published
37/62 abstracts with RCT design versus 340/728 abstracts with non‐RCT design published
|
Notes |
Cardiology ‐electrophysiology
Funding by the National Heart Foundation of Australia, National Heart Foundation of New Zealand, the Kidney Health Foundation of Australia, the University of Adelaide, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
|
Risk of bias |
Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
Sampling method? |
Yes |
Included all abstracts. |
Search for publications? |
Yes |
Searched 2 databases. |
Follow‐up time? |
Yes |
The meeting had 5 years follow‐up. |
Matching? |
Yes |
Matched by 3 different criteria. |
Adjustment for confounding? |
Yes |
Examined association of positive results, type science, and study design with publication using multivariable logistic regression. |