SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2015
Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Patients' and Providers' Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence and Electronic Health Record Use in Deep Phenotyping and Rare-Disease Screening: An Empty Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Statistically significant results from low-power analyses: A comedy of errors.Global epidemiology · 2026Article
- Out-of-office, into manuscripts: how writing retreats fuel emergency medicine scholarship.CJEM · 2026Article
- The journey from congress to journal: publication patterns of ECR 2019 oral presentations.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Embedding research capacity strengthening in multicountry sexual health research.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- What happens to qualitative studies initially presented as conference abstracts: A survey among study authors.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Analyzing resuscitation conference content through the lens of the chain of survival.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Factors promoting research activities among Japanese pharmacists: a questionnaire survey.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- SEETrials: Leveraging large language models for safety and efficacy extraction in oncology clinical trials.Informatics in medicine unlocked · 2024Article
- The mysterious case of the disappearing pilot study: a review of publication bias in preliminary behavioral interventions presented at health behavior conferences.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Review
- Evaluating the Ability of Open-Source Artificial Intelligence to Predict Accepting-Journal Impact Factor and Eigenfactor Score Using Academic Article Abstracts: Cross-sectional Machine Learning Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Bibliometric analysis and conversion rate of abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology into publication of full articles.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023Article
- Article
- Predicting Publication of Clinical Trials Using Structured and Unstructured Data: Model Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Examining the Development of Information Needs Assessment Questionnaires in Oncology: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Higher Author Fees in Gastroenterology Journals Are Not Associated with Faster Processing Times or Higher Impact.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT).BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
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
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically review reports that queried abstract authors about reasons for not subsequently publishing abstract results as full-length articles. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, and study bibliographies for empirical studies in which investigators examined subsequent full publication of results presented at a biomedical conference and reasons for nonpublication.
resultsThe mean full publication rate was 55.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 54.8%, 56.9%] for 24 of 27 eligible reports providing this information and 73.0% (95% CI: 71.2%, 74.7%) for seven reports of abstracts describing clinical trials. Twenty-four studies itemized 1,831 reasons for nonpublication, and six itemized 428 reasons considered the most important reason. "Lack of time" was the most frequently reported reason [weighted average = 30.2% (95% CI: 27.9%, 32.4%)] and the most important reason [weighted average = 38.4% (95% CI: 33.7%, 43.2%)]. Other commonly stated reasons were "lack of time and/or resources," "publication not an aim," "low priority," "incomplete study," and "trouble with co-authors."
conclusionsAcross medical specialties, the main reasons for not subsequently publishing an abstract in full lie with factors related to the abstract author rather than with journals.
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.