Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Mar;5(1):26-33.
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00343.x. Epub 2007 Dec 12.

When will I see you again? The fate of research findings from international wound care conferences*

Affiliations

When will I see you again? The fate of research findings from international wound care conferences*

Jo C Dumville et al. Int Wound J. 2008 Mar.

Abstract

Medical conferences provide a forum for the rapid dissemination of research directly to health professionals and academics. However, the published record of poster and oral presentations from these meetings is usually limited to abstracts. We aimed to assess how many wound studies presented as conference abstracts were eventually published in journals and to identify the factors that predicted publication. The study was a retrospective review. We identified abstracts relating to oral and poster presentation from two large wound conferences. Following data extraction from the abstracts, a systematic search was conducted to examine if the research was subsequently published as a journal article. A time-to-event analysis was conducted to assess predictive associations between features of the research reported in the conference abstracts and time to full publication. In total, 492 abstracts from two European wound care conferences were identified (467 after exclusions). Of the abstracts included, 60% (279) were for posters and 40% (188) were for oral presentations. Over half of the abstracts (53%) reported results from case studies or case series design. In total, only 57 (12%) of the abstracts included resulted in a related publication. Analysis suggested that those studies reporting positive findings were significantly more likely to be published (hazard ratio 1.79, P= 0.001, 95% CIs 1.26-2.55). Few studies presented as conference abstracts at these two wounds conferences were subsequently published. This may be because of the low methodological quality of studies accepted for poster or oral presentation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of abstracts.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Line marks time of conference. (A) Reporting of a significantly positive result. (B) Study methodology. RCT, randomised controlled trail.

References

    1. Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, Walley T, Haycox A, Williamson PR. Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full‐text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies. Health Technol Assess 2006;10:5. - PubMed
    1. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials: a survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 1987;317:426–32. - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC. Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study. BMJ 2006;333:231–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenburg P. Full publication of results originally published in an abstracts. A meta‐analysis. JAMA 1994;272:158–62. - PubMed
    1. Timmer A, Hilsden RJ, Cole J, Hailey D, Sutherland L. Publication bias in gastroenterological research – a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:7. - PMC - PubMed