Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25947093›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2015

"Publish or perish"-presentations at annual national orthopaedic meetings and their correlation with subsequent publication.

Zubin J Daruwalla, Sumon S Huq, Keng L Wong, Pei Y Nee, Diarmuid P Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zubin J DaruwallaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. zubin_jimmy_daruwalla@nuhs.edu.sg.
Sumon S HuqDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. sumon_huq@hotmail.com.
Keng L WongDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. francis_kl_wong@nuhs.edu.sg.
Pei Y NeeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Singapore, Singapore, 117597, Singapore. neepeiyi@gmail.com.
Diarmuid P MurphyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. diarmuid_murphy@nuhs.edu.sg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPresentation of research at annual national orthopaedic conferences not only serves as a forum for the dissemination of knowledge but is also often a requirement of orthopaedic training programmes. The expected outcome is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. However, publication rates vary for a variety of reasons. The objective of this study was to determine publication rates of presentations from our local Singapore Orthopaedic Association (SOA) annual scientific meeting (ASM) and some of the potential associated factors. We also compared our findings to equivalent meetings worldwide to assess value of scientific content of various orthopaedic conferences.

methodsAll presentations of six SOA ASMs were entered into a database. Using presentation titles, author names and keywords in PubMed and Google Scholar, we determined how many presentations progressed to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Various comparisons were made to determine factors that could influence publication rates. A comparison with national orthopaedic meetings of America, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Turkey and Brazil was also conducted.

resultsExcluding the ASMs with less than 4 years of follow-up, the publication rate was 35.8%. Both podium and international presenters were found to have significantly higher publication rates than poster and local presenters, respectively, while basic science and clinical research were found to have equivalent rates. Publication rates from other countries' national conferences ranged between 26.6% and 58.1%.

conclusionsWe suggest that the quality of a presentation is related to its subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our findings support the general consensus that the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is the gold standard for the dissemination of orthopaedic knowledge updates and advancements in our specialty. Each national orthopaedic association could determine the ratio of "presentations at ASM" to "publication within five years of presentation" and use this as a measure of their annual conference's impact on the addition and advancement to the orthopaedic literature. This tool may in turn assist clinicians in determining which meetings to attend.

Indexed as

Congresses as TopicOrthopedicsPublications

Identifiers

PMID25947093
PMCPMC4429899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.