ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
An analysis of publications originating from abstracts presented at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Meeting.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch presentation has benefits, including CV building, networking, and collaboration. A measurable standard for achievement is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Expectations regarding the likelihood of publication are unknown for studies presented at a national surgical scientific meeting. This study aims to evaluate predictors of manuscript publication arising from abstracts presented at a national surgical scientific meeting.
methodsAbstracts presented at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Meeting 2019 were reviewed. Identification of published manuscripts was completed using MedLine, Embase, and Google Scholar 28 months after the presentation to allow for time for publication. Factors evaluated for association with publication included author and abstract measures. Descriptive analyses and multivariable statistics were performed.
results724 abstracts (160 podiums, 564 posters) were included. Of the podium presentations, 128 (80%) were published in a median of 4 months after the presentation. On univariable and multivariable analyses, there was no association between publication and abstract topic, gender, degree, number of publications, or H-indices of first and senior authors. 154 (27.3%) poster presentations were published with a median of 13 months. On univariable analysis, there was a statistically significant difference regarding the abstract topic (p = 0.015) and senior author degree (p = 0.01) between published and unpublished posters. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that colorectal surgery (OR 2.52; CI 1.02-6.23) and metabolic/obesity (OR 2.53; CI 1.09-5.84) are associated with an increased odd of publication. There was an inverse association with female senior authors (OR 0.53; CI 0.29-0.98), while additional degrees (e.g., doctorate and/or master's degree) of the senior authors were associated with an increased publication rate (OR 1.80; CI 1.00-3.22).
conclusion80% of podiums but only 27% of posters were ultimately published. While some predictors of poster publication were noted, it is unclear if these are why these projects fail to publish. Future research is warranted to determine if there are effective strategies to increase poster publication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37204602What 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.