ArticleCanadian medical education journal2020
Will I publish this abstract? Determining the characteristics of medical education oral abstracts linked to publication.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2020. 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.
- Manuscript publication of abstracts presented at gynecologic surgery societies' annual meetings.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Exploring the Attitudes and Perceptions of Master of Medical Education Graduates Towards Research Publication in Saudi Arabia.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
- The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment?Canadian medical education journal · 2021Article
- This is a valuable editorial on assertiveness!Canadian medical education journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies have shown that most conference submissions fail to be published. Understanding factors that facilitate publication may be of benefit to authors. Using data from the Canadian Conference on Medical Education (CCME), our goal was to identify characteristics of conference submissions that predict the likelihood of publication with a specific focus on the utility of peer-review ratings.
methodsStudy characteristics (scholarship type, methodology, population, sites, institutions) from all oral abstracts from 2011-2015 and peer-review ratings for 2014-2015 were extracted by two raters. Publication data was obtained using online database searches. The impact of variables on publication success was analyzed using logistic regressions.
resultsIn total, 953 oral abstracts were reviewed from 2011 to 2015. Overall, the publication rate was 30.5% (291/953). Of 531 abstracts with peer-review ratings, between 2014 and 2015, 162 (31%) were published. Of the nine analyzed variables, those associated with a greater odds of publication were: multiple vs. single institutions (odds ratio (OR) = 1.72), post-graduate research vs. others (OR=1.81) and peer-review ratings (OR=1.60). Factors with decreased odds of publication were curriculum development (OR=0.17) and innovation vs. others (OR=0.22).
conclusionSimilar to other studies, the publication rate of CCME presentations is low. However, peer ratings were predictive of publication success suggesting that ratings could be a useful form of feedback to authors.
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.