Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting
Failure to publish study results causes duplication of effort and is a significant source of waste. It also can lead to distortions in the evidence base that can lead to misallocation of resources and medical harm. Failure to publish is commonly studied by comparing the conversion rate of meeting ab...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinica chimica acta 2016-05, Vol.456, p.49-55 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 55 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 49 |
| container_title | Clinica chimica acta |
| container_volume | 456 |
| creator | Greene, Dina N. Wilson, Andrew R. Bailey, Nicole M. Schmidt, Robert L. |
| description | Failure to publish study results causes duplication of effort and is a significant source of waste. It also can lead to distortions in the evidence base that can lead to misallocation of resources and medical harm. Failure to publish is commonly studied by comparing the conversion rate of meeting abstracts or publication rate of registered trials and has not been studied in clinical chemistry. The objective of this study was to determine the abstract conversion rate in clinical chemistry.
For the set of abstracts published from the 2011 annual meeting of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, we determined which converted to full publications and which had not. We used 3 methods to match publications to abstracts: 1) a survey sent to corresponding authors of abstracts, 2) a web scrape of Google Scholar, and PubMed, and 3) a manual search using Scopus. Publication rates were compared by topic, country of corresponding author, institution type, and award recognition.
Matching publications were found for 38% (95% CI: 34–42%) of the abstracts. The acceptance rate for submitted manuscripts was 34% (95% CI: 28–43%) among those who responded to the survey. Publication rates varied by topic (range 13% to 59%); rates from academic institutions were higher than commercial institutions (42% vs 16%, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.cca.2016.02.019 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1780815193</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S000989811630064X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1780815193</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-7b0563146b18c8bfc585f58aebb60208e9a02dd21f283c2e3b63521ae55391533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWqs_wIvk6GXXTNJss3gqpX5AQQ96Dkl2VlP2oyZZwX_vllaPwsDMwDMvzEPIFbAcGBS3m9w5k_NxzBnPGZRHZAJqLjIxK_kxmTDGykyVCs7IeYybcZ2xAk7JGS_KsQo1IauXwTbemeT7jvZDcn2LtK-psTEF41Kk24ARu4QVNYmmD6SLxXJJTdcNpqEtYvLd-wU5qU0T8fLQp-TtfvW6fMzWzw9Py8U6c0KKlM0tk4WAWWFBOWVrJ5WspTJobcE4U1gaxquKQ82VcByFLYTkYFBKUYIUYkpu9rnb0H8OGJNufXTYNKbDfoga5oopkFDuUNijLvQxBqz1NvjWhG8NTO_s6Y0e7emdPc24Hu2NN9eH-MG2WP1d_Ooagbs9gOOTXx6Djs5j57DyAV3SVe__if8BG6h-IQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1780815193</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Greene, Dina N. ; Wilson, Andrew R. ; Bailey, Nicole M. ; Schmidt, Robert L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Greene, Dina N. ; Wilson, Andrew R. ; Bailey, Nicole M. ; Schmidt, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><description>Failure to publish study results causes duplication of effort and is a significant source of waste. It also can lead to distortions in the evidence base that can lead to misallocation of resources and medical harm. Failure to publish is commonly studied by comparing the conversion rate of meeting abstracts or publication rate of registered trials and has not been studied in clinical chemistry. The objective of this study was to determine the abstract conversion rate in clinical chemistry.
For the set of abstracts published from the 2011 annual meeting of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, we determined which converted to full publications and which had not. We used 3 methods to match publications to abstracts: 1) a survey sent to corresponding authors of abstracts, 2) a web scrape of Google Scholar, and PubMed, and 3) a manual search using Scopus. Publication rates were compared by topic, country of corresponding author, institution type, and award recognition.
Matching publications were found for 38% (95% CI: 34–42%) of the abstracts. The acceptance rate for submitted manuscripts was 34% (95% CI: 28–43%) among those who responded to the survey. Publication rates varied by topic (range 13% to 59%); rates from academic institutions were higher than commercial institutions (42% vs 16%, p<0.001). The publication rate of abstracts recognized “with distinction” was significantly greater than the publication rate of non-winners (68% vs 37%, p=0.001).
A significant proportion of abstracts presented at the AACC national meeting are not followed by full publication.
•We assessed the number of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting that progress to publication.•Approximately 50% of all presented abstracts do not progress to publication.•Field of study and institution type influence publication rate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-8981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-3492</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2016.02.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26926968</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Chemistry, Clinical ; Congresses as Topic ; Publishing - statistics & numerical data ; Societies, Scientific ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Clinica chimica acta, 2016-05, Vol.456, p.49-55</ispartof><rights>2016 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-7b0563146b18c8bfc585f58aebb60208e9a02dd21f283c2e3b63521ae55391533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-7b0563146b18c8bfc585f58aebb60208e9a02dd21f283c2e3b63521ae55391533</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4414-0139</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2016.02.019$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26926968$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Greene, Dina N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Andrew R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Nicole M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><title>Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting</title><title>Clinica chimica acta</title><addtitle>Clin Chim Acta</addtitle><description>Failure to publish study results causes duplication of effort and is a significant source of waste. It also can lead to distortions in the evidence base that can lead to misallocation of resources and medical harm. Failure to publish is commonly studied by comparing the conversion rate of meeting abstracts or publication rate of registered trials and has not been studied in clinical chemistry. The objective of this study was to determine the abstract conversion rate in clinical chemistry.
For the set of abstracts published from the 2011 annual meeting of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, we determined which converted to full publications and which had not. We used 3 methods to match publications to abstracts: 1) a survey sent to corresponding authors of abstracts, 2) a web scrape of Google Scholar, and PubMed, and 3) a manual search using Scopus. Publication rates were compared by topic, country of corresponding author, institution type, and award recognition.
Matching publications were found for 38% (95% CI: 34–42%) of the abstracts. The acceptance rate for submitted manuscripts was 34% (95% CI: 28–43%) among those who responded to the survey. Publication rates varied by topic (range 13% to 59%); rates from academic institutions were higher than commercial institutions (42% vs 16%, p<0.001). The publication rate of abstracts recognized “with distinction” was significantly greater than the publication rate of non-winners (68% vs 37%, p=0.001).
A significant proportion of abstracts presented at the AACC national meeting are not followed by full publication.
•We assessed the number of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting that progress to publication.•Approximately 50% of all presented abstracts do not progress to publication.•Field of study and institution type influence publication rate.</description><subject>Chemistry, Clinical</subject><subject>Congresses as Topic</subject><subject>Publishing - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Societies, Scientific</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0009-8981</issn><issn>1873-3492</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWqs_wIvk6GXXTNJss3gqpX5AQQ96Dkl2VlP2oyZZwX_vllaPwsDMwDMvzEPIFbAcGBS3m9w5k_NxzBnPGZRHZAJqLjIxK_kxmTDGykyVCs7IeYybcZ2xAk7JGS_KsQo1IauXwTbemeT7jvZDcn2LtK-psTEF41Kk24ARu4QVNYmmD6SLxXJJTdcNpqEtYvLd-wU5qU0T8fLQp-TtfvW6fMzWzw9Py8U6c0KKlM0tk4WAWWFBOWVrJ5WspTJobcE4U1gaxquKQ82VcByFLYTkYFBKUYIUYkpu9rnb0H8OGJNufXTYNKbDfoga5oopkFDuUNijLvQxBqz1NvjWhG8NTO_s6Y0e7emdPc24Hu2NN9eH-MG2WP1d_Ooagbs9gOOTXx6Djs5j57DyAV3SVe__if8BG6h-IQ</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Greene, Dina N.</creator><creator>Wilson, Andrew R.</creator><creator>Bailey, Nicole M.</creator><creator>Schmidt, Robert L.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4414-0139</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting</title><author>Greene, Dina N. ; Wilson, Andrew R. ; Bailey, Nicole M. ; Schmidt, Robert L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-7b0563146b18c8bfc585f58aebb60208e9a02dd21f283c2e3b63521ae55391533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Chemistry, Clinical</topic><topic>Congresses as Topic</topic><topic>Publishing - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Societies, Scientific</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Greene, Dina N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Andrew R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Nicole M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidt, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinica chimica acta</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Greene, Dina N.</au><au>Wilson, Andrew R.</au><au>Bailey, Nicole M.</au><au>Schmidt, Robert L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting</atitle><jtitle>Clinica chimica acta</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Chim Acta</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>456</volume><spage>49</spage><epage>55</epage><pages>49-55</pages><issn>0009-8981</issn><eissn>1873-3492</eissn><abstract>Failure to publish study results causes duplication of effort and is a significant source of waste. It also can lead to distortions in the evidence base that can lead to misallocation of resources and medical harm. Failure to publish is commonly studied by comparing the conversion rate of meeting abstracts or publication rate of registered trials and has not been studied in clinical chemistry. The objective of this study was to determine the abstract conversion rate in clinical chemistry.
For the set of abstracts published from the 2011 annual meeting of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, we determined which converted to full publications and which had not. We used 3 methods to match publications to abstracts: 1) a survey sent to corresponding authors of abstracts, 2) a web scrape of Google Scholar, and PubMed, and 3) a manual search using Scopus. Publication rates were compared by topic, country of corresponding author, institution type, and award recognition.
Matching publications were found for 38% (95% CI: 34–42%) of the abstracts. The acceptance rate for submitted manuscripts was 34% (95% CI: 28–43%) among those who responded to the survey. Publication rates varied by topic (range 13% to 59%); rates from academic institutions were higher than commercial institutions (42% vs 16%, p<0.001). The publication rate of abstracts recognized “with distinction” was significantly greater than the publication rate of non-winners (68% vs 37%, p=0.001).
A significant proportion of abstracts presented at the AACC national meeting are not followed by full publication.
•We assessed the number of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting that progress to publication.•Approximately 50% of all presented abstracts do not progress to publication.•Field of study and institution type influence publication rate.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>26926968</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cca.2016.02.019</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4414-0139</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0009-8981 |
| ispartof | Clinica chimica acta, 2016-05, Vol.456, p.49-55 |
| issn | 0009-8981 1873-3492 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1780815193 |
| source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Chemistry, Clinical Congresses as Topic Publishing - statistics & numerical data Societies, Scientific Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | Publication outcome of abstracts presented at the AACC annual meeting |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T07%3A39%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Publication%20outcome%20of%20abstracts%20presented%20at%20the%20AACC%20annual%20meeting&rft.jtitle=Clinica%20chimica%20acta&rft.au=Greene,%20Dina%20N.&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=456&rft.spage=49&rft.epage=55&rft.pages=49-55&rft.issn=0009-8981&rft.eissn=1873-3492&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cca.2016.02.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1780815193%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1780815193&rft_id=info:pmid/26926968&rft_els_id=S000989811630064X&rfr_iscdi=true |