5 years ago

Publication Rates of Abstracts Accepted to the 2010–2012 Annual Meetings of the North American Spine Society

Publication Rates of Abstracts Accepted to the 2010–2012 Annual Meetings of the North American Spine Society
Kudaravalli, Krishna T., Yom, Kelly H., Singh, Kern, Hijji, Fady Y., Narain, Ankur S.
Study Design. Retrospective review of conference abstracts. Objective. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate of podium and poster presentations at the 2010–2012 North American Spine Society (NASS) annual meetings. Summary of Background Data. Presentations at medical conferences are utilized to disseminate new clinical information. The orthopedic literature estimates the rate of publication for abstracts presented at major meetings to be between 34.0% and 67.1%. However, few studies have analyzed the publication rate of accepted abstracts to the NASS annual meetings. Methods. All abstracts presented at the 2010–2012 NASS annual meetings were reviewed. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched to determine whether each abstract was published as a full-length manuscript before or up to 3 years after its NASS meeting presentation. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Poisson regression with robust error variance, and linear regression. Results. A total of 1045 abstracts were accepted to the 2010–2012 NASS annual meetings. 43.8% were published before or up to 3 years after their NASS presentation. Podium presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (47.1% vs. 37.7%, P = 0.005). Abstracts with “Best” or “Outstanding” designations were also more likely to be published than abstracts without those designations (54.4% vs. 45.0%, P = 0.034). Presentations designated as “Best” or “Outstanding” articles had shorter time to publication than presentations without those designations (369 vs. 486 days, P = 0.002). Conclusion. This study suggests that only 43.8% of abstracts accepted to NASS are published as full-length manuscripts. As such, practitioners should use caution when altering clinical practice based solely on conference presentations. Additionally, podium presentations are more likely to be published than poster presentations. This trend may be reflective of the higher quality of abstracts accepted as podiums, or may be associated with a larger number of lower-quality abstracts being accepted because of the use of the e-poster format. Level of Evidence: 4
You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.