Publication of Surgical Abstracts in Full Text: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION Abstracts presented at national and international scientific meetings are an important educational resource. However, the work is not peer reviewed and little is known about the quality or validity of the presented results and the fate of such abstracts. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study of abstracts presented to the 1997 annual meeting of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. We examined the rates of full-text publication, time to publication, factors influencing publication, inconsistencies between presented and subsequently published manuscripts, and reasons for non-publication of abstracts. RESULTS Of the 241 abstracts presented, 136 (56.4%) were published at a median duration of 18 months. Multicentre studies had a greater tendency to subsequent publication and studies involving academic centres predicted publication in a high impact factor journal. Inconsistencies between presented and published abstracts were common and were significantly associated with delayed publication. Oral and poster presentations were equally likely to be published. Reasons for non-submission of presented abstracts included lack of time, low priority to publish, perceived methodological limitations, lack of novelty of findings and co-investigators leaving the organisation. CONCLUSIONS More than half of the work presented at a national surgical meeting in the UK has been subsequently published. Various factors that influence the process of publication and remediable causes for non-publication have been identified.