Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32332966›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2020

Outcomes of abstracts presented at IADR general meetings in 2014 and 2015.

Yung Wei Jarred Lee, Chun Ho Wong, Chermaine Cheong, Girvan Burnside

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Yung Wei Jarred LeeRoyal Liverpool University Dental Hospital, Pembroke Pl, Liverpool, L3 5PS, UK. jarred994@gmail.com.
Chun Ho WongGlasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, 378 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, G2 3JZ, UK.
Chermaine CheongGlasgow Dental School, University of Glasgow, 378 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, G2 3JZ, UK.
Girvan BurnsideDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Abstract presentations at scientific meetings provide a platform to share and discuss new research. It would be desirable if the abstracts were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals as this is the most accepted method to allow the dissemination of scientific research.Aims To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) general sessions in 2014 and 2015, and factors involved from presentation to publication.Design A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed of the abstracts identified. Abstract titles, author's last name and key words were used to identify whether an abstract resulted in a publication. Abstracts published in full-length articles were then analysed.Results There were a total number of 5,847 abstracts presented at 2014 and 2015 IADR general sessions. 60.9% of posters presented and 72.1% of oral presentations were consecutively published as a full-length article. The average publication rate of abstracts was 63.3%. USA had the highest number of published abstracts with a publication rate of 64.9%, followed by Brazil and Japan which had 62.3% and 67.9%, respectively. The mean time from presentation to publication was 13 months.Conclusion There is scope for further guidance to ensure scientific work is properly disseminated and published.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.