Dataset Information

Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVETo assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGWe identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Between May and July 2015, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify corresponding full-text publications; if needed, we contacted abstract authors. Cox regression was performed to estimate associations with full-text publication, where sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were logit transformed, and DOR was log transformed.RESULTSA full-text publication was found for 226/399 (57%) included abstracts. There was no association between reported estimates of sensitivity and full-text publication (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.98, 1.22]). The same applied to specificity (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.88, 1.14]), AUC (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.75, 1.09]), and DOR (HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94, 1.09]).CONCLUSIONAlmost half of the ARVO conference abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies did not reach full-text publication. Studies in abstracts that mentioned higher accuracy estimates were not more likely to be reported in a full-text publication.

SUBMITTER: Korevaar DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5148658 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication.

Korevaar Daniël A DA Cohen Jérémie F JF Spijker René R Saldanha Ian J IJ Dickersin Kay K Virgili Gianni G Hooft Lotty L Bossuyt Patrick M M PM

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20160614

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>We identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteri ...[more]

PMID: 27312228

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings and the factors associated with publication.DesignA retrospective observational study.ParticipantsAll abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings (2010-2012).Main outcome measuresPublication rates were determined by searching the MEDLINE database for full-text articles published by September 2017. Data on presentation format (oral vs poster), affiliation of the first author, number of authors, number of involved institutions, journal of publication and publication date were abstracted.ResultsOf the 1003 abstracts evaluated, 38 (3.8%, 95% CI 2.6% to 5.0%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in the MEDLINE database. The median time to publication was 15.5 months (IQR, 9.3-29.3 months). More than 95% of published abstracts were published within 4 years. The publications appeared in 23 different journals (21 English-language journals and two Japanese-language journals). Based on univariate analysis using binary logistic regression, publication was more frequent for oral presentations (7.3%vs2.0% for poster presentations; OR 3.91,95% CI 1.98 to 7.75), and for first authors affiliated with university-associated institutions (6.4%vs2.4% for first authors affiliated with non-university-associated institutions; OR 2.75,95% CI 1.42 to 5.30). Based on multivariate analysis, oral presentation and first author affiliation with a university-associated institution were still the only independent predictive factors for publication (adjusted OR 3.50(95% CI 1.72 to 7.12) and adjusted OR 2.35(95% CI 1.19 to 4.63), respectively). Even among 151 abstracts presented orally by first authors affiliated with a university-associated institution, only 18 abstracts (11.9%) were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.ConclusionsThe publication rate of abstracts presented at the Japan Primary Care Association Annual Meetings was extremely low. Further studies are warranted to investigate the barriers to publication among investigators who participate in conferences where the publication rate is extremely low.

Project description:BackgroundIncluding results from unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review may ameliorate the effect of publication bias in systematic review results. Unpublished RCTs are sometimes described in abstracts presented at conferences, included in trials registers, or both. Trial results may not be available in a trials register and abstracts describing RCT results often lack study design information. Complementary information from a trials register record may be sufficient to allow reliable inclusion of an unpublished RCT only available as an abstract in a systematic review.MethodsWe identified 496 abstracts describing RCTs presented at the 2007 to 2009 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) meetings; 154 RCTs were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Two persons extracted verbatim primary and non-primary outcomes reported in the abstract and ClinicalTrials.gov record. We compared each abstract outcome with all ClinicalTrials.gov outcomes and coded matches as complete, partial, or no match.ResultsWe identified 800 outcomes in 152 abstracts (95 primary [51 abstracts] and 705 [141 abstracts] non-primary outcomes). No outcomes were reported in 2 abstracts. Of 95 primary outcomes, 17 (18%) agreed completely, 53 (56%) partially, and 25 (26%) had no match with a ClinicalTrials.gov primary or non-primary outcome. Among 705 non-primary outcomes, 56 (8%) agreed completely, 205 (29%) agreed partially, and 444 (63%) had no match with a ClinicalTrials.gov primary or non-primary outcome. Among the 258 outcomes partially agreeing, we found additional information on the time when the outcome was measured more often in ClinicalTrials.gov than in the abstract (141/258 (55%) versus 55/258 (21%)). We found no association between the presence of non-matching "new" outcomes and year of registration, time to registry update, industry sponsorship, or multi-center status.ConclusionConference abstracts may be a valuable source of information about results for outcomes of unpublished RCTs that have been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Complementary additional descriptive information may be present for outcomes reported in both sources. However, ARVO abstract authors also present outcomes not reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and these may represent analyses not originally planned.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.Methods154 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.ResultsOverall, 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 (Consort5.7 ± 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%.ConclusionsNo 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe problem of access to medical information, particularly in low-income countries, has been under discussion for many years. Although a number of developments have occurred in the last decade (e.g., the open access (OA) movement and the website Sci-Hub), everyone agrees that these difficulties still persist very widely, mainly due to the fact that paywalls still limit access to approximately 75% of scholarly documents. In this study, we compare the accessibility of recent full text articles in the field of ophthalmology in 27 established institutions located worldwide.MethodsA total of 200 references from articles were retrieved using the PubMed database. Each article was individually checked for OA. Full texts of non-OA (i.e., "paywalled articles") were examined to determine whether they were available using institutional and Hinari access in each institution studied, using "alternative ways" (i.e., PubMed Central, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and Online Reprint Request), and using the website Sci-Hub.ResultsThe number of full texts of "paywalled articles" available using institutional and Hinari access showed strong heterogeneity, scattered between 0% full texts to 94.8% (mean = 46.8%; SD = 31.5; median = 51.3%). We found that complementary use of "alternative ways" and Sci-Hub leads to 95.5% of full text "paywalled articles," and also divides by 14 the average extra costs needed to obtain all full texts on publishers' websites using pay-per-view.ConclusionsThe scant number of available full text "paywalled articles" in most institutions studied encourages researchers in the field of ophthalmology to use Sci-Hub to search for scientific information. The scientific community and decision-makers must unite and strengthen their efforts to find solutions to improve access to scientific literature worldwide and avoid an implosion of the scientific publishing model. This study is not an endorsement for using Sci-Hub. The authors, their institutions, and publishers accept no responsibility on behalf of readers.

Dataset Information

Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication.

Publications

Reported estimates of diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology conference abstracts were not associated with full-text publication.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets