ArticleBalkan medical journal2017
Publication Rates and Inconsistencies of the Abstracts Presented at the National Anatomy Congresses in 2007 and 2008.
Article in Balkan medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Publication rates of congress abstracts is associated with abstract quality: Evaluation of Turkish National Medical Education Congresses and Symposia between 2010 and 2014 using MERSQI.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Criteria for selection and classification of studies in medical events.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
- Contribution of national congress presentations to scientific literature: An analysis of efficiency.Turkish journal of emergency medicine · 2019Article
- A descriptive analysis of abstracts presented at the Turkish National Cardiology Congresses between 2011 and 2015.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2018Article
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
backgroundDespite significant efforts made for, most abstracts presented during a meeting do not proceed and publish as a manuscript in scientific journals.
aimsTo investigate publication rates of national anatomy congresses. STUDY
designDescriptive study.
methodsAll abstracts presented at two annual meetings in 2007 and 2008 were extracted. PubMed and Google Scholar database search used for publication history. Presentation and study types, publication rates and mean publishing times were evaluated. Inconsistency rates between meeting abstract and final published article were also considered.
resultsAmong 342 abstracts, 195 (57%) were followed by a full-text article. Publication rates for oral and poster presentations were 75% and 52.2%, respectively. The mean publication time was 23.7±23 months. Overall, 89.2% of the articles were published within 5 years. There were no inconsistencies in 50 (25.6%) articles, while 145 (74.4%) had inconsistencies compared to the abstracts presented at the congress. Getting adequate information for 45 (23.1%) articles was not possible. There was no standard reporting format for the abstracts.
conclusionOur study shows that, overall publication rates for abstracts presented at national anatomy meetings were higher than those presented at national meetings for clinical specialties.
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.