ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021
Discrepancies between Conference Abstracts and Published Manuscripts in Plastic Surgery Studies: A Retrospective Review.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Overactive Bladder in Women with Non-Urinary Tract Endometriosis and the Effect of Endometriosis Surgery on Symptoms of Overactive Bladder.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Ovarian absence: a systematic literature review and case series report.Journal of ovarian research · 2023Pooled it
- Conclusions reported in European Orthodontic Congress poster abstracts: are they based on clinical or statistical significance?European journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Consistency between trials presented at conferences, their subsequent publications and press releases.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInconsistency in results and outcomes between presented abstracts and corresponding published articles can negatively affect clinical education and care. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency of clinically meaningful change in results and outcomes between abstracts presented at the American Association of Plastic Surgeons annual conference and the corresponding published articles, and to determine risk factors associated with discrepancies.
methodsAll abstracts delivered as oral presentations at the American Association of Plastic Surgeons conference (2006-2016) were reviewed. Results and outcomes were compared with those in corresponding articles. We defined clinically meaningful discrepancy as any change in the directionality of an outcome, or a quantitative change in results exceeding 10%.
resultsFour hundred eighty-six abstracts were identified. Of these, 63% (N = 305) advanced to publication. Of the published studies, 19% (N = 59) contained a discrepancy. In 85% of these (N = 50), discrepancies could not be explained by random variation. Changes in sample size were associated with heightened risk for a discrepancy (OR 10.38, 95% CI 5.16-20.86,
conclusionsMost discrepancies between abstract and published article were not due to random statistical variation. To mitigate the possible impact of unreliable abstracts, we recommend abstracts be marked as preliminary, that authors indicate whether sample size is final at time of presentation, and that changes to previously reported results be indicated in final publications.
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.