ArticleAsian spine journal2020
Stronger Together in Lab: Multi-Center and Laboratory Spine Studies Are Closer to Publication than Single-Center and Clinical Spine Studies: Snapshot of Annual Meetings of the Spine Society of Europe.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Posters Presented at North American Skull Base Society 2016-2018: What Factors Influence Their Publication?Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2023Article
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
STUDY
designThis is a cross-sectional study of literature databases. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the predictive factors for the publication rates of spine studies. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Spine research has garnered worldwide interest due to the increased number of spinal disorders in aging population.
methodsWe evaluated the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Spine Society of Europe between 2009 and 2012. Additionally, we recorded presentation categories, study designs, research types, random assignments of the subjects, single- or multi-center- based methodologies, and significance of the results.
resultsWe evaluated 965 abstracts, 53.5% of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. Publication rates were significantly higher for oral presentations (62.9%) and prospective studies (61.3%) as compared to the poster presentations (46.7%) and retrospective studies (44.2%), respectively (p<0.001). Clinical studies contributed to about 86.1% of the published abstracts. However, publication rates were significantly higher for laboratory studies as compared to clinical studies (70.1% vs. 50.8%, p<0.001). Multi-center studies were closer to publication than single-center studies (67.1% vs. 52.2%, p=0.009). Our study demonstrated that multi-center studies (odds ratio, 1.81; p=0.016) and laboratory studies (odds ratio, 2.60; p<0.001) are more likely to be published.
conclusionsMulti-center collaborations dedicated to experimental studies in spine research are highly ranked and more likely to be published in peer-reviewed 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.