Increase in publication rates and publication bias found following presentation at the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery, and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine (ISAKOS) biennial congress​

ObjectivesThe number of abstracts presented at the biennial International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery, and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine (ISAKOS) Congress has grown exponentially since its inaugural meeting in 1997. Despite this, publication rates of abstracts presented at the Congress have not been studied since 1999 where publication rates were found to be 39%. The primary objective of the current study was to provide an update on rates of publication and examine factors associated with publication.MethodsAll abstracts presented at the 2013 ISAKOS Congress were obtained from the official meeting website. Searches for subsequent publications were conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar by two independent reviewers. Data collected included presentation type (ie, podium or poster), publication status (yes or no), study results (positive or negative), date of publication, journal name, and whether there were discrepancies between abstract and publication.ResultsA total of 746 abstracts were presented at the 2013 ISAKOS Congress. There were 413 (55.4%) abstracts that were published in peer-reviewed journals by the end of 2018 with a mean time to publication of 593 days. Podium presentations were significantly more likely to be published than poster presentations with publication rates of 61.0% and 52.5%, respectively (p<0.03). Abstracts with positive results were significantly more likely to be published than those with negative results with publication rates of 60.8% and 48.5%, respectively (p<0.001). Discrepancies from congress abstract to eventual publication were noted in 17% of studies.ConclusionPublication rates of abstracts presented at the ISAKOS Congress have improved dramatically since last studied in 1999 and are comparable to other prominent orthopaedic and sport medicine conferences. Podium presentations and abstracts with positive findings were more likely to be published. Approximately, one in five abstracts were found to have discrepancies between the abstract presented and subsequent publication.