Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis

R. W. Scherer, K. Dickersin and P. Langenberg
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore 21201.

OBJECTIVES--To estimate the rate of full publication of the results of randomized clinical trials initially presented as abstracts at national ophthalmology meetings in 1988 and 1989; and to combine data from this study with data from similar studies to determine the rate at which abstracts are subsequently published in full and the association between selected study characteristics and full publication. DATA SOURCES--Ophthalmology abstracts were identified by review of 1988 and 1989 meeting abstracts for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Similar studies were identified either from reports contained in our files or through a MEDLINE search, which combined the textword "abstract" with "or" statements to the Medical Subject Headings ABSTRACTING & INDEXING, CLINICAL TRIALS, PEER REVIEW, PERIODICALS, MEDICAL SOCIETIES, PUBLISHING, MEDLINE, INFORMATION SERVICES, and REGISTRIES. STUDY SELECTION--Ophthalmology abstracts were selected from the meeting proceedings if they reported results from a randomized controlled trial. For the summary study, similar studies were eligible for inclusion if they described followup and subsequent full publication for a cohort of abstracts describing the results of any type of research study. All studies had to have followed up abstracts for at least 24 months to be included. DATA EXTRACTION--Authors of ophthalmology abstracts were contacted by letter to ascertain whether there was subsequent full publication. Other information, including characteristics of the study design possibly related to publication, was taken from the abstract. For the summary study, rates of full publication were taken directly from reported results, as were associations between study factors (ie, "significant" results and sample size) and full publication. DATA SYNTHESIS--Sixty-six percent (61/93) of ophthalmology abstracts were published in full. Combined results from 11 studies showed that 51% (1198/2391) of all abstracts were subsequently published in full. Full publication was weakly associated with "significant" results and sample size above the median. CONCLUSIONS--Approximately one half of all studies initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full-length reports. Most are published in full within 2 years of appearance as abstracts. Full publication may be associated with "significant" results and sample size.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, September 2009: Call for Research
Rennie et al.
JAMA 2007;298:2420-2421.
FULL TEXT  

Reporting research results: a moral obligation for all researchers/Presenter les resultants de recherche : une obligation morale pour tous les chercheurs
Moher
Canadian J. Anesthesia 2007;54:331-335.
FULL TEXT  

What's the rush? The dissemination and adoption of preliminary research results.
Woloshin and Schwartz
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:372-373.
FULL TEXT  

Delay in Final Publication Following Abstract Presentation: American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting
Dyson and Sparling
jvme 2006;33:145-148.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Society of Gynecologic Investigation: What Gets Published?
Gandhi and Gilbert
Reproductive Sciences 2004;11:562-565.
ABSTRACT  

Factors Influencing the Publication of Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health Research
Hartling et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:983-987.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Subsequent Publication of Orally Presented Original Studies within 5 Years after 1995 RSNA Scientific Assembly
Arrive et al.
Radiology 2004;232:101-106.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Does Presentation Format at the Pediatric Academic Societies' Annual Meeting Predict Subsequent Publication?
Carroll et al.
Pediatrics 2003;112:1238-1241.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Meta-Analysis of the Performance of 18F-FDG PET in Primary Tumor Detection in Unknown Primary Tumors
Delgado-Bolton et al.
JNM 2003;44:1301-1314.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Factors Associated With Failure to Publish Large Randomized Trials Presented at an Oncology Meeting
Krzyzanowska et al.
JAMA 2003;290:495-501.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cures That Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs
McCord
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2003;587:16-30.
ABSTRACT  

Barriers to Full-Text Publication Following Presentation of Abstracts at Annual Orthopaedic Meetings
Sprague et al.
JBJS 2003;85:158-163.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Survey of public information about ongoing clinical trials funded by industry: evaluation of completeness and accessibility
Manheimer and Anderson
BMJ 2002;325:528-531.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making
Olson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2825-2828.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Journal Prestige, Publication Bias, and Other Characteristics Associated With Citation of Published Studies in Peer-Reviewed Journals
Callaham et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2847-2850.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Media Coverage of Scientific Meetings: Too Much, Too Soon?
Schwartz et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2859-2863.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Presented at the Society for Pediatric Research Meeting: An Example of Publication Bias
Klassen et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156:474-479.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

An Observational Study of Orthopaedic Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Text Publications
Bhandari et al.
JBJS 2002;84:615-621.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a survey and evaluation of obstetrical postdural puncture headache reports : [Examen de la preuve dans la documentation sur l'anesthesie : enquete et evaluation des articles sur les cephalees obstetricales post-ponction durale]
Choi et al.
Canadian J. Anesthesia 2002;49:49-56.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Effect of Early Patient Enrollment on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Controlled Trials
Haidich and Ioannidis
Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:873-880.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Commentary: Toward systematic reviews in epidemiology
Bracken
Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:954-957.
FULL TEXT  

Trends in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trials Through the 20th Century
Kidwell et al.
Stroke 2001;32:1349-1359.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Short report: Do presenters to paediatric meetings get their work published?
Riordan
Arch. Dis. Child. 2000;83:524-526.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Electronic Trial Banks: A Complementary Method for Reporting Randomized Trials
Sim et al.
Med Decis Making 2000;20:440-450.
ABSTRACT  

Publication bias in reproductive research
Evers
Hum Reprod 2000;15:2063-2066.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The use of felbamate in the treatment of patients with intractable epilepsy
Benbadis et al.
Neurology 2000;54:1206-1206.
FULL TEXT  

The Fate of Neuroradiologic Abstracts Presented at National Meetings in 1993: Rate of Subsequent Publication in Peer-Reviewed, Indexed Journals
Marx et al.
Am. J. Neuroradiol. 1999;20:1173-1177.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

JAMA-EXPRESS: Rapid Peer Review and Publication
Winker and Fontanarosa
JAMA 1999;281:1754-1755.
FULL TEXT  

Positive-Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research Abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting
Callaham et al.
JAMA 1998;280:254-257.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Unpublished Research From a Medical Specialty Meeting: Why Investigators Fail to Publish
Weber et al.
JAMA 1998;280:257-259.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 1
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:181-211.
ABSTRACT  

Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials
Ioannidis
JAMA 1998;279:281-286.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Publication Patterns of Papers Presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
HAMLET et al.
JBJS 1997;79:1138-43.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability
Savulescu et al.
BMJ 1996;313:1390-1393.
FULL TEXT  

From Laboratory to Scientific Literature: The Life and Death of Biomedical Research Results
DIRK
Science Communication 1996;18:3-28.
ABSTRACT  

Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
Dickersin et al.
BMJ 1994;309:1286-1291.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT