Conversion Rate of Abstracts Presented at Plastic Surgery The Meeting From 2010 to 2019: A 10-Year Analysis of Factors for Success
- PMID: 38556693
- DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003792
Conversion Rate of Abstracts Presented at Plastic Surgery The Meeting From 2010 to 2019: A 10-Year Analysis of Factors for Success
Abstract
Background: Presentations are an important means of knowledge generation. Publication of these studies is important for dissemination of findings beyond meeting attendees. We analyzed a 10-year sample of presented abstracts at Plastic Surgery The Meeting and describe factors that improve rate and speed of conversion to peer-reviewed publication.
Methods: Abstracts presented between 2010 and 2019 at Plastic Surgery The Meeting were sourced from the American Society of Plastic Surgery Abstract Archive. A random sample of 100 abstracts from each year was evaluated. Abstract information and demographics were recorded. The title or author and keywords of each abstract were searched using a standardized workflow to find a corresponding published paper on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google. Data were analyzed for trends and factors affecting conversion rate.
Results: A total of 983 presented abstracts were included. The conversion rate was 54.1%. Residents and fellows constituted the largest proportion of presenters (38.4%). There was a significant increase in medical student and research fellow presenters during the study period (P < 0.001). Conversion rate was not affected by the research rank of a presenter's affiliated institution (β = 1.001, P = 0.89), geographic location (P = 0.60), or subspecialty tract (P = 0.73). US academics had a higher conversion rate (61.8%) than US nonacademics (32.7%) or international presenters (47.1%) (P < 0.001). Medical students had the highest conversion rate (65.6%); attendings had the lowest (45.0%). Research fellows had the lowest average time to publication (11.6 months, P = 0.007).
Conclusions: Lower levels of training, factors associated with increased institution-level support, and research quality affect rate and time to publication. These findings highlight the success of current models featuring medical student and research fellow-led projects with strong resident and faculty mentorship.
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
References
-
- Dickersin K, Min YI. Publication bias: the problem that won't go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:135–146 discussion 46-8.
-
- Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005;330:753.
-
- Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457–2465.
-
- Paletta FX. History of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1963;32:101–239.
-
- Attendee Profile. 2023. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgerythemeeting.com/about/attendee-profile. Accessed April 15, 2023.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
