Dataset Information

Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The preliminary results of a study are usually presented as an abstract in conference meetings. The reporting quality of those abstracts and the relationship between their study designs and full paper publication rate is unknown. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials are more likely to be published as full papers than observational studies.

Methods

154 oral abstracts presented at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention 2005 Oslo and the corresponding full paper publication were identified and analysed. The main outcome measures were frequency of publication, time to publication, impact factor, CONSORT (for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, STROBE (for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) score, and minor and major inconsistencies between the abstract and the full paper publication.

Results

Overall, 76 of the 154 (49%) presented abstracts were published as full papers in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.946 ± 0.812. No significant difference existed between the impact factor for randomized controlled trials (2.122 ± 1.015) and observational studies (1.913 ± 0.765, p = 0.469). The full papers for the randomized controlled trials were published after an average (SD) of 17 months (± 13 months); for observational studies, the average (SD) was 12 months (± 14 months) (p = 0.323). A trend was observed in this study that a higher percentage of randomized controlled trial abstracts were published as full papers (71% vs. 47%, p = 0.078) than observational trials. The reporting quality of abstracts, published as full papers, significantly increased compared to conference abstracts both in randomized control studies (

Consort

5.7 ± 0.7 to 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.018, CI -2.7 to -0.32) and in observational studies (STROBE: 8.2 ± 1.3 to 8.6 ± 1.4; p = 0.007, CI -0.63 to -0.10). All of the published abstracts had at least one minor inconsistency (title, authors, research center, outcome presentation, conclusion), while 65% had at least major inconsistencies (study objective, hypothesis, study design, primary outcome measures, sample size, statistical analysis, results, SD/CI). Comparing the results of conference and full paper; results changed in 90% vs. 68% (randomized, controlled studies versus observational studies); data were added (full paper reported more result data) in 60% vs. 30%, and deleted (full paper reported fewer result data) in 40% vs. 30%.

Conclusions

No significant differences with respect to type of study (randomized controlled versus observational), impact factor, and time to publication existed for the likelihood that a World Congress of Sports Injury conference abstract could be published as a full paper.

SUBMITTER: Yoon U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3349576 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers.

Yoon Uzung U Knobloch Karsten K

BMC medical research methodology 20120411

<h4>Background</h4>The preliminary results of a study are usually presented as an abstract in conference meetings. The reporting quality of those abstracts and the relationship between their study designs and full paper publication rate is unknown. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials are more likely to be published as full papers than observational studies.<h4>Methods</h4>154 oral abstracts presented at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention 2005 Oslo and the corresponding ...[more]

PMID: 22494412

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed abstracts of conferences and journal articles related to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. Here, we extend the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement to develop a minimum list of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting the results of a RCT in any journal or conference abstract.Methods and findingsWe generated a list of items from existing quality assessment tools and empirical evidence. A three-round, modified-Delphi process was used to select items. In all, 109 participants were invited to participate in an electronic survey; the response rate was 61%. Survey results were presented at a meeting of the CONSORT Group in Montebello, Canada, January 2007, involving 26 participants, including clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical editors. Checklist items were discussed for eligibility into the final checklist. The checklist was then revised to ensure that it reflected discussions held during and subsequent to the meeting. CONSORT for Abstracts recommends that abstracts relating to RCTs have a structured format. Items should include details of trial objectives; trial design (e.g., method of allocation, blinding/masking); trial participants (i.e., description, numbers randomized, and number analyzed); interventions intended for each randomized group and their impact on primary efficacy outcomes and harms; trial conclusions; trial registration name and number; and source of funding. We recommend the checklist be used in conjunction with this explanatory document, which includes examples of good reporting, rationale, and evidence, when available, for the inclusion of each item.ConclusionsCONSORT for Abstracts aims to improve reporting of abstracts of RCTs published in journal articles and conference proceedings. It will help authors of abstracts of these trials provide the detail and clarity needed by readers wishing to assess a trial's validity and the applicability of its results.

Project description:BackgroundFinancial conflicts of interest (FCOI) are known to be prevalent in medicine. Authorship of pivotal trials reap non-financial benefits including publication productivity that can be used for assessment of tenure positions and promotion. The purpose of this investigation was to quantify the prevalence and discordance of academic trial author (authors) FCOI in industry-sponsored drug trials that were initially presented as oral abstracts and subsequently resulted in a peer-reviewed publication.MethodsOral abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2017 Annual Meeting that were subsequently published were identified. Studies that were non-industry sponsored, non-adult, or non-therapeutic trials were excluded. Studies that did not have a subsequent peer-reviewed publication or had a publication preceding the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting were also excluded. FCOI was categorized and impact factor (IF) for the journal at the time of publication was retrieved. FCOI discordance between the oral abstract and publication was calculated based on geographic location and IF.ResultsA total of 22 paired abstract and publications met inclusion criteria for further analysis. A total of 384 authors were identified, of these 280 authors (74.1%) were included in both the oral abstract and subsequent publication. A total of 76% of these 280 authors had FCOI and 66.4% had FCOI discordance. There were statistically significant differences for the sum of FCOI discordance for U.S.-based authors (p = 0.0004) but not for journal IF. When analyzing the sum of absolute differences of FCOI discordance, statistical significance was reached for authors from any of the three geographic regions, as well as, low and high IF journals (all p-values < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis study draws attention to the lack of uniformity and vetting of FCOI reporting in abstracts and journals publishing solid tumor oncology trial results. This is particularly concerning, since FCOI is prevalent globally.

Project description:BackgroundThe quality of oral and poster conference presentations differ. We hypothesized that the quality of reporting is better in oral abstracts than in poster abstracts at the American Burn Association (ABA) conference meeting.MethodsAll 511 abstracts (2000: N = 259, 2008: N = 252) from the ABA annual meetings in year 2000 and 2008 were screened. RCT's and obervational studies were analyzed by two independent examiners regarding study design and quality of reporting for randomized-controlled trials (RCT) by CONSORT criteria, observational studies by the STROBE criteria and additionally the Timmer instrument.ResultsOverall, 13 RCT's in 2000 and 9 in 2008, 77 observational studies in 2000 and 98 in 2008 were identified. Of the presented abstracts, 5% (oral; 7%(n = 9) vs. poster; 3%(n = 4)) in 2000 and 4% ((oral; 5%(n = 7) vs. poster; 2%(n = 2)) in 2008 were randomized controlled trials. The amount of observational studies as well as experimental studies accepted for presentation was not significantly different between oral and poster in both years. Reporting quality of RCT was for oral vs. poster abstracts in 2000 (CONSORT; 7.2 ± 0.8 vs. 7 ± 0, p = 0.615, CI -0.72 to 1.16, Timmer; 7.8 ± 0.7 vs. 7.5 ± 0.6,) and 2008 (CONSORT; 7.2 ± 1.4 vs. 6.5 ± 1, Timmer; 9.7 ± 1.1 vs. 9.5 ± 0.7). While in 2000, oral and poster abstracts of observational studies were not significantly different for reporting quality according to STROBE (STROBE; 8.3 ± 1.7 vs. 8.9 ± 1.6, p = 0.977, CI -37.3 to 36.3, Timmer; 8.6 ± 1.5 vs. 8.5 ± 1.4, p = 0.712, CI -0.44 to 0.64), in 2008 oral observational abstracts were significantly better than posters (STROBE score; 9.4 ± 1.9 vs. 8.5 ± 2, p = 0.005, CI 0.28 to 1.54, Timmer; 9.4 ± 1.4 vs. 8.6 ± 1.7, p = 0.013, CI 0.32 to 1.28).ConclusionsPoster abstract reporting quality at the American Burn Association annual meetings in 2000 and 2008 is not necessarily inferior to oral abstracts as far as study design and reporting quality of clinical trials are concerned. The primary hypothesis has to be rejected. However, endorsement for the comprehensive use of the CONSORT and STROBE criteria might further increase the quality of reporting ABA conference abstracts in the future.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Current resuscitation guidelines recommend 3:1 Compression:Ventilation (C:V) ratio, however the most effective C:V ratio in newborns remains controversial. We recently demonstrate that if chest compressions (CC) are superimposed by sustained inflations (SI) return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and mortality are improved in asphyxiated newborn piglets when compared to standard coordinated 3:1 resuscitation. However, this has not been studied in newborns. OBJECTIVES: To determine if CC superimposed with SI impacts ROSC in infants <33 weeks with bradycardia or asystole compared to coordinated 3:1 C:V resuscitation. DESIGN/METHODS: In a pilot study, infants born <33 weeks gestational age with an heart rate <60/min or asystole were randomized to receive either “3:1 C:V” or “SS+CC”. Infants randomized to 3:1 received coordinated CC and ventilation according to the current resuscitation guidelines. Infants randomized to “SI+CC” received uninterrupted CC at a rate of 90/min superimposed by a SI of 30 sec. The default settings for airway pressures were peak inflation pressure of 24 cm H2O and a positive end expiratory pressure of 6 cm H2O. The primary outcome was duration of CC to achieve ROSC. Deferral of consent was approved by the institutional ethics committee. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02083705. RESULTS: Five infants were randomized to each group; the mean (range) gestational age was 25 (24–27) weeks vs. 26 (23–28) weeks in the in the SI+CC and 3:1 group (P=0.433), respectively. Mean (SD) birth weight in the SI+CC group was 797 (208) g vs. 808 (182) g in the 3:1 group, (P=0.465) respectively. Mean (SD) ROSC was significantly decreased in the SI+CC group with 31 (8) sec vs. 138 (72) sec in the 3:1 group (P=0.011). One infant in each group died and only one infant in the 3:1 group received epinephrine. One infant in the SI+CC group and three in the 3:1 had intracranial hemorrhage grade 3 or greater. Three infants in the SI+CC group had necrotizing enterocolitis vs. one infant in the 3:1 group (P=0.197). CONCLUSION: Preterm infants <33 weeks had significant shorter ROSC when CC were superimposed by SI compared to using 3:1.

Dataset Information

Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers.

Background

Methods

Results

Consort

Conclusions

Publications

Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets