SynthesisWorld journal of urology2010
The fate of conference abstracts: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2015Pooled it
- Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFrom the literature search for a government-commissioned systematic review on surgical treatments for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE), we identified the relevant conference abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which failed to reach full publication and their data were not utilised. We aimed to ascertain, first, the reasons of failure to reach full publication and second, to estimate the impact of including the abstracts' data.
designA two-part study, consisting of a questionnaire survey and a sensitivity analysis of the above said review.
methodsAn ad hoc questionnaire was sent to each author of the relevant abstracts, as to determine the reasons of failure to reach full publication. The data from the abstracts were then extracted and incorporated into sensitivity analysis of the review.
resultsForty-seven questionnaires were completed for 47 abstracts. Of these abstracts, 32 of them were claimed to have reached full publication. A number of reasons of failure to reach full publication were identified, for example: 'being written up' and 'lack of time'. Utilizable, relevant data were obtained from eight of the 47 abstracts, and put into sensitivity analysis. There were small changes in effect sizes and directions for three of 14 reviews' secondary outcomes.
conclusionCommon reasons of failure to reach full publication were also identified in the context for the BPE review. Inclusion of abstract data did not affect primary outcome defined in the original review. Identification, summarisation of conference abstracts and other grey literature should form an essential exercise for any systematic review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.