Publication rates of hematology/oncology abstracts presented at major pharmacy association meetings

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110047
Author(s):  
Kiley M Wooten ◽  
Justin R Arnall ◽  
Kiarra M Bowser ◽  
Laurie J Pennell ◽  
Jazmin N Wade-Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Clinical Pharmacy ◽  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Full Publication ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
American Society ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Abstract Presentation

Introduction Professional conferences are where research findings are initially presented. Studies suggest many research ideas presented at conferences are never published. Previous studies have demonstrated that the full publication rate of abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings is approximately 20%. The objective of this study was to determine the full publication rate of hematology/oncology abstracts presented at major pharmacy organization annual meetings. Methods A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed. Publication status was evaluated for hematology/oncology abstracts presented at annual meetings for the following organizations: American College of Clinical Pharmacy Annual Meeting, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Midyear Clinical Meeting, Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association Annual Meeting, and International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners Annual Meeting. Data collected included the meeting of abstract presentation, number of authors, abstract study type, country of origin, journal of publication, and type of publication. Abstracts presented as trainee research were excluded. Results Of 451 oncology abstracts evaluated, the most common topic categories included pharmacotherapy (n = 244; 54.1%), clinical pharmacy practice (n = 84; 18.6%), and operational/compounding (n = 69; 15.3%). The overall publication rate was 17.5% (n = 79). Abstracts were published as full manuscripts over a spread of 48 different journals. Factors associated with full publication included abstracts with more than 5 authors (OR 3.86, 95% CI 2.32-6.43; p < 0.0001) and abstracts presented at oncology-focused pharmacy meetings (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.49-5.72; p = 0.0018). Conclusion This study showed an overall publication rate of 17.5% for abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings, consistent with prior studies.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons Annual Meeting – 10 years on

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Moon ◽  
C Harding
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Scientific Meeting ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
The Past ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Mean Time ◽  
Publishing Journal

Introduction: Acceptance of abstracts at the BAUS Annual Meeting is sought after by trainees and encouraged by trainers; however, it is the publication of this research in a peer-reviewed journal that validates the significance of the work. We aimed to compare current publication rates with those detailed in a previous study 10 years ago to examine for changes on the rate and time to peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented. We also assessed whether there was a difference in the presentation and publication rates between UK deaneries. Methods: All abstracts accepted for presentation at the annual BAUS 2012 and 2013 meetings were identified from the published supplements in the BJU International journal. Listed abstracts were searched for in October 2015 using the Medline Plus (PubMed) database to assess for successful conversion to a peer-reviewed paper listed on the Medline database. Results: In total 281 abstracts were presented; of these, 265 (94.3%) were from the UK. A total of 24.2% of the abstracts presented over the two-year period resulted in a successful conversion to a peer-reviewed publication. Mean time to publication was 11.59 months and mean impact factor of the publishing journal was 3.854. There appeared to be no correlation between the number of abstracts presented per deanery and the subsequent successful conversion to peer-reviewed publication. Conclusions: There has been a decline over the past decade in the number of BAUS abstracts being successfully converted into peer-reviewed publications, from 42% to 24.2%. The quality of any scientific meeting can be quantified by the number of peer-reviewed publications arising from its abstracts. Possible reasons for this observed reduction include a lack of time to prepare manuscripts, the actual quality and relevance of work being presented and data that may be of questionable validity. In addition, indicative numbers set for publications to enable successful awarding of Certificate of Completion of Training are low.

Providing research results to study participants: support versus practice of researchers presenting at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 1199-1202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Rigby ◽  
Conrad V. Fernandez
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
International Research ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Community Evaluation ◽  
American Society ◽  
High Level ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Study Participants

AbstractOffering to provide research results to study participants is gaining increasing support based, in part, on the principle of respect for persons. The frequency and means of this practice is unknown in national and international research communities. All investigators who presented oral abstracts involving human research at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting (December 2003) were surveyed. Responses were received from 197 (42%) of 472 eligible investigators. Nonrespondents did not differ in study type or country of origin. Only 30% (n = 48) of those who completed the survey had a formal plan for the return of research results; 40% of these would return both a summary plus individual level results. Of the respondents, 69% (n = 109) supported or strongly supported the practice; only 3% opposed the practice. The most commonly cited reasons for not returning results were: did not consider it (38%), anticipated contact difficulties (32%), and participant difficulty understanding results (26%). Only 11 (7%) indicated that their institutional review board (IRB) mandates the offer to provide results to all participants; this did not vary significantly by country. Given the high level of support in the international research community, evaluation of well-planned interventions for offering to provide research results to participants should be a priority.

Evaluating the Landscape of Clinical Research in Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. E485-E493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herschel W Wilde ◽  
Jared C Reese ◽  
Mohammed A Azab ◽  
Michael Karsy ◽  
Jian Guan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Observational Research ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Private Funding ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
New Research ◽  
Study Type

Abstract BACKGROUND Many clinical trials and observational research never reach publication in peer-reviewed journals. Unpublished research results, including neutral study findings, hinder generation of new research questions, utilize healthcare resources without benefit, and may place patients at risk without benefit. OBJECTIVE To examine the publication of neurosurgery trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS Clinical neurosurgery research was identified by searching the registry and categorized by study type. Associated publications were identified on Pubmed.gov. RESULTS Among the 709 studies identified, spine (292, 41.2%) studies were most common, followed by tumor and cranial (each 114, 16.1%). Funding was predominantly private (482, 68.0%), followed by industry (135, 19.0%) and National Institutes of Health (9, 1.3%). A lower proportion of published studies (vs unpublished) received private funding in functional (33.3 vs 65.3%) and tumor (80.0 vs 68.7%). Only 104/464 (22.4%) studies had an associated publication. The mean time from listed study completion to first publication was 31.0 ± 27.5 mo. Most published studies had significant study differences between treatment arms (n = 72, 69.2%); studies with neutral findings were less likely to be published (n = 13, 12.5%). Surgical discipline (P = .1), funding source (P = .8), patient age (P = .4), planned enrollment (P = .1), phase of trial (P = .3), and study type (P = .2) did not affect publication rates. However, the interaction between study category and funding source significantly affected publication rate (P = .04, generalized linear model, R2 = 0.05). Publication timing (1-way analysis of variance, P = .5) and frequency (chi-square, P = .2) did not differ among disciplines. CONCLUSION Clinical trials and observational research in neurosurgery are often not published promptly, especially if results were nonsignificant or the trial had private funding.

Paediatric abstract publication rates for the American Society of Echocardiography Meeting

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 692-696
Author(s):  
Adam Morrison ◽  
John Kelly ◽  
Brian Rivera ◽  
Carl H. Backes ◽  
Clifford L. Cua
Keyword(s):  
Science Studies ◽  
Fetal Echocardiography ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
Deformation Analysis ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
American Society

AbstractBackgroundAbstract presentations of scientific information at meetings are important for broadcasting new information. Publication of these studies should be the final goal, but minimal data exist documenting publication rates, especially for paediatric sub-speciality meetings. The goal of this study was to document the manuscript publication rate for paediatric cardiac echocardiography abstracts and to determine whether there were differences between abstracts that were published versus not published.MethodsPaediatric cardiac echocardiography abstracts presented from 2007 to 2011 at the American Society of Echocardiography Meetings were reviewed. Characteristics of the abstracts were noted. A Medline/Pubmed search was performed using keywords, first author, and senior author criteria to determine publication. Fisher’s exact tests or χ2 tests were used for analysis.ResultsA total of 194 abstracts were reviewed. In all, 27 abstracts were oral presentations and 167 were poster presentations. A total of 124 abstracts were prospective studies and 70 were retrospective studies; 11 abstracts were basic science studies and 183 were clinical studies. Altogether, 25 abstracts dealt with three-dimensional echocardiography, 15 with fetal echocardiography, 56 with deformation analysis, 79 with standard transthoracic echocardiography, and 19 were in the other category. A total of 73 abstracts were subsequently published – with a 37.6% publication rate – 2.1±1.7 years after initial presentation. There were no significant differences in publication rates based on the above-noted variables.ConclusionA paediatric cardiac echocardiography abstract publication rate of 37.6% is comparable to previous published publication rates for other meetings. No differences in variables analysed were noted between published versus unpublished abstracts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document