ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2019
Publication rate of abstracts orally presented at the Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation National Congresses.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The publication rate of oral presentations presented in national congresses of Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2019Article
- Full-text publications of presentations at neuroanesthesia meetings of India: A 5-year audit and analysis.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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
objectiveThe most widely accepted parameter in evaluating the quality of research presented at scientific congresses is the success of publishing that research in a peer-reviewed journal. There are limited data in the literature about the publishing rates of abstracts orally presented at national congresses of the Turkish Society of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation (TARD) in scientific journals. The aim of the present study was to investigate the literary contribution of oral presentations at the TARD Congresses (TARK) and to present proposals for future congresses with detailed evaluation of the literature.
methodsOverall, 319 orally presented abstracts at the TARK between October 2011 and October 2014 have been reviewed in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Abstracts were evaluated with respect to the institution of the principal author, type of research, publication status in scientific journal, type of publication, year of publication, rate of citation, order of authors and changes in title.
resultsThe distributions of investigated papers were as follows: 73.1% clinical research, 21.9% experimental research, 2.5% case presentations and 2.5% survey studies. Moreover, 57.7% of the abstracts had authors from universities, 16% from research-training hospitals and 26.3% from mixed institutions. Further, 42.3% of the abstracts were published as articles in a scientific journal, 65.9% of the manuscripts were published in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) indexed, 8.1% in non-SCIE indexed international journals and 25.9% in national journals. There was no statistically significant difference between institution from which publications were sent and the index status of the journal (p=0.068). The average publication time of the abstracts was 15.01±12.26 months.
conclusionThe publication rate of abstracts orally presented at the TARK between October 2011 and October 2014 is 42.3%, which is in accordance with other international studies. This indicates that the reports in the congresses were assessed by the jury according to international selection criteria and meticulously scored. The majority of the abstracts were published in journals that are listed in SCIE, indicating a quantitative data regarding the scientific quality of research in anaesthesiology.
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.