ArticleSkeletal radiology2013
Publication rate of scientific abstracts presented at ESSR 2008 and 2009.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Who? What? Where? A snapshot of Nuclear Medicine Research Presentations from recent ANZSNM conferences in Australia and New Zealand.Asia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology · 2020Article
- Conversion of Skeletal Society of Radiology annual meeting abstracts to publications in 2010-2015.PeerJ · 2018Article
- Presentation to publication: proportion of abstracts published for ESPR, SPR and IPR.Pediatric radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDuring the ESSR 2011 Research Committee Meeting, the duration of intellectual property of a research proposal was discussed. A duration of 2 years from idea to publication was suggested. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how many ESSR 2008 and 2009 scientific abstracts were PubMed cited in print within 2 years of the congress. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn September of 2011, two researchers independently performed a literature search using author names and title words of all ESSR 2008 and 2009 scientific abstracts published in Skeletal Radiology. In case of similarity or doubt, a senior reviewer made the final decision. Publication details were recorded and analyses were performed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA).
resultsUntil September of 2011, 62 out of 137 ESSR 2008 and 2009 scientific abstracts (45%) were PubMed cited in print [2008: 34/73 (47%); 2009: 28/64 (44%)]. 54 out of 137 abstracts (39%) were PubMed cited in print within 2 years of the congress [2008: 30/73(41%); 2009: 23/64 (36%)] including eight out of 137 abstracts (6%), which were already published before the congress [2008: 4/73 (5%); 2009: 4/64 (6%)]. The top-ranking journal in absolute numbers of publications was Skeletal Radiology. The top publishing country was the United Kingdom. Study sample size and first author position between abstract and publication did not change in the majority.
conclusionsThirty-nine percent of ESSR 2008 and 2009 scientific abstracts were published within 2 years of the congress including 6% that were already PubMed cited in print before the congress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22933017What 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.