Dataset Information

Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting.

ABSTRACT: Abstracts submitted to meetings are subject to less rigorous peer review than full-text manuscripts. This study aimed to explore the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) annual meeting.Abstracts presented at the 2008 AAO meeting were analyzed. Each presented abstract was sought via PubMed to identify if it had been published as a full-text manuscript. The publication outcome, journal impact factor (IF), and time to publication were recorded.A total of 690 abstracts were reviewed, of which 39.1% were subsequently published. They were published in journals with a median IF of 2.9 (range 0-7.2) and a median publication time of 426 days (range 0-2,133 days). A quarter were published in the journal Ophthalmology, with a shorter time to publication (median 282 vs. 534 days, p=0.003). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (57.8% vs. 35.9%, p<0.001) and in journals with higher IFs (3.2 vs. 2.8, p=0.02). Abstracts describing rare diseases had higher publication rates (49.4% vs. 38.0%, p=0.04) and were published in higher IF journals (3.7 vs. 2.9, p=0.03), within a shorter period of time (358 vs. 428 days, p=0.03). In multivariate analysis, affiliation with an institute located in the United States (p=0.002), abstracts describing rare diseases (p=0.03), and funded studies (p=0.03) were associated with publication in higher IF journals.Almost 40% of abstracts were published. Factors that correlated with publication in journals with higher IF were a focus on rare diseases, affiliation with a US institute, and funding.

SUBMITTER: Mimouni M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5764594 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting.

Mimouni Michael M Krauthammer Mark M Abualhasan Hamza H Badarni Hanan H Imtanis Kamal K Allon Gilad G Berkovitz Liron L Blumenthal Eytan Z EZ Mimouni Francis B FB Amarilyo Gil G

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20180102 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Abstracts submitted to meetings are subject to less rigorous peer review than full-text manuscripts. This study aimed to explore the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) annual meeting.<h4>Methods</h4>Abstracts presented at the 2008 AAO meeting were analyzed. Each presented abstract was sought via PubMed to identify if it had been published as a full-text manuscript. The publication outcome, journal impact factor (IF), and ti ...[more]

PMID: 29339934

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe visual acuity data representation in the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) Registry and present a data-cleaning strategy.DesignReliability and validity study.ParticipantsPatients with visual acuity records from 2018 in the IRIS Registry.MethodsVisual acuity measurements and metadata were identified and characterized from 2018 IRIS Registry records. Metadata, including laterality, assessment method (distance, near, and unspecified), correction (corrected, uncorrected, and unspecified), and flags for refraction or pinhole assessment were compared between Rome (frozen April 20, 2020) and Chicago (frozen December 24, 2021) versions. We developed a data-cleaning strategy to infer patients' corrected distance visual acuity in their better-seeing eye.Main outcome measuresVisual acuity data characteristics in the IRIS Registry.ResultsThe IRIS Registry Chicago data set contains 168 920 049 visual acuity records among 23 001 531 unique patients and 49 968 974 unique patient visit dates in 2018. Visual acuity records were associated with refraction in 5.3% of cases, and with pinhole in 11.0%. Mean (standard deviation) of all measurements was 0.26 (0.41) logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), with a range of - 0.3 to 4.0 A plurality of visual acuity records were labeled corrected (corrected visual acuity [CVA], 39.1%), followed by unspecified (37.6%) and uncorrected (uncorrected visual acuity [UCVA], 23.4%). Corrected visual acuity measurements were paradoxically worse than same day UCVA 15% of the time. In aggregate, mean and median values were similar for CVA and unspecified visual acuity. Most visual acuity measurements were at distance (59.8%, vs. 32.1% unspecified and 8.2% near). Rome contained more duplicate visual acuity records than Chicago (10.8% vs. 1.4%). Near visual acuity was classified with Jaeger notation and (in Chicago only) also assigned logMAR values by Verana Health. LogMAR values for hand motion and light perception visual acuity were lower in Chicago than in Rome. The impact of data entry errors or outliers on analyses may be reduced by filtering and averaging visual acuity per eye over time.ConclusionsThe IRIS Registry includes similar visual acuity metadata in Rome and Chicago. Although fewer duplicate records were found in Chicago, both versions include duplicate and atypical measurements (i.e., CVA worse than UCVA on the same day). Analyses may benefit from using algorithms to filter outliers and average visual acuity measurements over time.Financial disclosuresProprietary or commercial disclosure may be found found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Project description:ImportanceRecommendations of clinical guidelines affect physicians' care delivery. Potential bias and undeclared conflicts of interests (COIs) among guideline authors can impact clinical practice decisions.ObjectiveTo assess financial disclosures reported by physician authors of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Practice Pattern Guidelines compared with those reported by industry to evaluate the disclosures' accuracy.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, all clinical guidelines in the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP) since 2013 (first year with publicly available industry payment reports) were reviewed on May 1, 2022. Guideline physician authors' name and their reported COI disclosure were extracted from the guideline publication. Payments to physician authors reported by industry were retrieved from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Open Payments database. Physician authors serving on the AAO guideline committee were included.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was the accuracy of authors' COIs disclosure. Secondary outcome measures were payments to physician authors reported by industry, the types of payments, and authors' gender.ResultsA total of 24 AAO guidelines released between 2016 and 2020 were included. Per guideline, there was a mean (SD) of 7.83 (2.24) physician authors. After removing 14 nonphysician authors, 188 physician author names remained, including 83 names assigned as women (44.1%) and 105 names assigned as men (55.9%). Authors could be counted multiple times in these 188 names. According to the Open Payments database, industry reported that 112 of 188 physician authors (59.6%) had at least received 1 payment while serving on the guideline committee, with a payment mean (SD) of $29 849.35 ($54 131.56). According to AAO guidelines, 149 authors (79.3%) had no financial disclosures while serving on the guideline committee. Among these 149 authors, most authors (81 [54.4%]) had payments reported by industry on the Open Payments database not disclosed within the guideline reports. Women physicians were paid significantly more than men for total payments (median [IQR] payments, $15 265 [$598.47-$41 104.67] vs $301.48 [$218.85-$14 615.09]; difference, $14 963.52; P = .003).Conclusions and relevanceIndustry reported physician guideline authors to have received significant industry payments, some of which were not disclosed within information of the guidelines. To strengthen author transparency regarding these reported disclosures, the authors may want to review and resolve such potential discrepancies during the review and subsequent publication of guidelines.

Dataset Information

Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting.

Publications

Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets