ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2013
[Abstracts at congresses of the German Society of Urology. Trends and quality].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- [Urological research in Germany : A retrospective, longitudinal observational study].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2020Observational
- Current findings from research on structured abstracts: an update.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe congress of the German Society of Urology is the third biggest urology congress worldwide and reflects the scientific landscape of urology in Germany. In the congress abstracts, detailed data regarding study design, current trends in urologic research and the cooperation of authors are lacking. We wanted to identify factors contributing to the likelihood of an abstract being followed by a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe two congresses of the years 2002 and 2009 were exemplarily analyzed. Various aspects regarding study design and cooperations were retrieved from the abstracts and trends were determined. Subsequent publications in peer-reviewed journals were searched for in MEDLINE and potential factors influencing publication success were identified. Significance was tested for using the χ (2) and Mann-Whitney-U statistical tests.
resultsA total of 732 abstracts (2002: 352, 2009: 380) were analyzed, one third of which contained prospective, retrospective or preclinical/experimental studies. Internal (28.7 %) and national (27.6 %) cooperations were most frequent. Significant trends towards more retrospective studies (p=0.008) and national cooperations (p=0.019) were found. Of the abstracts 49.2 % (2002) and 56.3% (2009) were followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals (median 15.1 months) with a significantly higher mean impact factor in 2009 (3.4 vs. 2.1, respectively p>0.0001). Therapeutic studies and those including statistics or national cooperations were significantly more likely to be published.
conclusionIn the future urologic research should focus on prospective studies. Many abstracts are not followed by a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This is especially true for abstracts containing no statistics. As national collaborations are correlated with successful publication, an early national networking of young researching urologists should be promoted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23942740What 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.