ArticleSarcoma2021
Comparison of Publication Rates for Musculoskeletal Oncology Abstracts Presented at National Meetings.
Article in Sarcoma, 2021. 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.
- Article
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
backgroundScientific meetings provide a forum to disseminate new research and advance patient care. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS), and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) annual meetings are examples of such gatherings in the field of musculoskeletal oncology. After a review of select MSTS abstracts from 1991 to 1999 revealed a 41% publication rate in scientific journals, previous authors cautioned meeting attendees that the majority of abstracts may not survive rigorous peer review and may not be scientifically valid. Since two decades have passed, this study reexamined publication rates and characteristics in a contemporary and expanded cohort of oncology abstracts presented at the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings.
methods1408 podium and poster abstracts from the AAOS (oncology-focused from 2013 to 2015), CTOS (2012 to 2014), and MSTS (2012 to 2014) annual meetings were reviewed to allow for a four-year publication window. Searches were performed with PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify full-text publications using abstract keywords. Characteristics of each abstract and resulting publication were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests for time-independent comparisons, and the log-rank test after reverse Kaplan-Meier analysis for time-dependent comparisons.
resultsAbstract publication rates overall were higher for podium presentations (67%, 280 of 415) compared to poster presentations (53%, 530 of 993;
conclusionsPublication rates in this study were higher than previous reports in musculoskeletal oncology and comparable or better than recent reports for other orthopedic meetings. Comparisons across the AAOS, CTOS, and MSTS annual meetings highlight notable differences but suggest similarity overall in the quality of evidence presented with little overlap between meetings. Taken together, this study points to progress in the review processes used by the program committees, reaffirms the importance of critical appraisal when considering abstract findings, and supports the continued organization of multiple scientific meetings in musculoskeletal oncology.
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.