Dataset Information

Full Abstract to Published Manuscript: Evaluation of the Scientific Impact of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Conference.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The scientific rigor of the abstracts presented at the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) annual meeting has not been recently evaluated. In this study, we sought to determine the rate at which abstracts presented at the 2017 and 2018 ASBrS meetings were published in peer-reviewed journals, and compared the rates with breast abstracts presented at the 2018 Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) meeting.

Methods

Abstracts from the 2017 and 2018 ASBrS and 2018 SSO conferences were searched in PubMed for published manuscripts using the abstract title and/or first or last author.

Results

In 2017, 21.6% of the 268 abstracts presented at the ASBrS conference resulted in full publication, compared with 36.6% of the 273 abstracts presented at the 2018 ASBrS conference, resulting in a significant difference in the publication rate (p < 0.001). Of the 158 abstracts published from the 2017 and 2018 meetings, 75 (47.8%) were published in Annals of Surgical Oncology (ASO). There was no correlation between impact factor and time to publication. Oral presentations and quick shots were more likely to be published than poster presentations, and oral presentations were more likely to be published in higher-impact journals. The 2018 SSO meetings resulted in 54 of 111 (48.6%) breast abstracts leading to full publication.

Conclusion

Approximately 29.2% of the abstracts presented at the ASBrS 2017 and 2018 conferences resulted in a published manuscript. A higher publication rate in higher impact journals for oral presentations indicates that the abstract review process properly stratifies the research.

SUBMITTER: Brown ZJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8294299 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Attendance at professional society meetings facilitates networking, collaboration, and success in academic/scientific fields. Insufficient funds, support, or resources for caregiving can inhibit attendance for parents/caretakers, who may become professionally disadvantaged by not attending professional society conferences. The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) offered a family support grant for caregiving needs during the annual conference (maximum: $750); however, the perceived impact of caregiving funds on attendance outcomes is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the need of family support for attendance to the ASN annual conference among applicants and to assess recipients' experience and usage of funds. Applicants completed a pre-conference survey assessing requested funds, out-of-pocket caregiving expenses to attend the meeting, the influence of receiving the grant on attendance, and additional factors. Recipients completed a post-conference survey assessing use of the funds and impact of the grant on attending/participating. Grant applications (n = 110) were majority women, aged 26-45 y, married, at the trainee or assistant professor level, from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, and with parenting noted as the primary responsibility. Thirty-seven percent of applicants were currently lactating or expressing milk. The average amount requested was $650 US dollars, and >60% of respondents indicated plans to use funds to bring a family member/friend to the conference. Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that receiving the grant would influence their attendance. The post-conference survey (n = 25) indicated that recipients felt that receiving the grant was helpful in attending the conference (92%), specifically attending scientific sessions (96%) and poster sessions (80%). Recipients indicated the grant helped them network with attendees (88%), visit the exhibitor hall (72%), and participate in career development activities (64%). The ASN family support grant aided attendance and supported recipients' participation in conference activities, particularly early-career women who are parents, with the goal of supporting diversity and inclusivity in scientific/academic fields. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03432585.

Project description:Background: Despite limited oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have increased in the United States over the past 15 years. CPM is often accompanied by breast reconstruction, thereby requiring an interdisciplinary approach between breast and plastic surgeons. Despite this, little is known about plastic surgeons' (PS) perspectives of CPM. The purpose of this study was to assess PS practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 2,642 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Questions assessed demographics, practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Results: ASPS response rate was 12.5% (n = 329). Most responders worked in private practice (69%), were male (81%) and had been in practice for ≥15 years (60%). The median number of CPM reconstructions performed per month was 2-4. Fifty-five percent of PS reported routine attendance at a breast multidisciplinary conference. Responders reported CPM discussion was most likely to be initiated by the patient (51%) followed by the breast surgeon (38%), and plastic surgeon (7.3%). According to PS, the most common reason patients choose CPM is a perceived increased contralateral cancer risk (86%). Most plastic surgeons (63%) assessed the benefits of CPM as worth the risk of additional surgery and the majority (53%) estimated the complication rate at 2X the risk of unilateral surgery. The majority (61%) of PS estimated risk of contralateral cancer in an average risk patient between <2 and 5% over 10 years, which is consistent with data reported from the current literature. Most plastic surgeons (87%) reported that there was no evidence or limited evidence for breast cancer specific survival benefit with CPM. A minority of PS (18.5%) reported discomfort with a patient's choice for CPM. Of those surgeons reporting discomfort, the most common reasons for their reservations were a concern with the risk/benefit ratio of CPM and with lack of patient understanding of expected outcomes. Common reasons for PS comfort with CPM were a respect for autonomy and non-oncologic benefits of CPM. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first survey reporting PS perspectives on CPM. According to PS, CPM dialogue appears to be patient driven and dominated by a perceived increased risk of contralateral cancer. Few PS reported discomfort with CPM. While many PS acknowledge both the limited oncologic benefit of CPM and the increased risk of complications, the majority have the opinion that the benefits of CPM are worth the additional risk. This apparent contradiction may be due to an appreciation of the non-oncologic benefits CPM and a desire to respect patients' choices for treatment.