 |
|
Transition From Meeting Abstract to Full-length Journal Article for Randomized Controlled Trials
Mustafa Toma, MD;
Finlay A. McAlister, MD, MSc;
Liza Bialy, BSc;
Denise Adams, BSc;
Ben Vandermeer, BSc, MSc;
Paul W. Armstrong, MD
JAMA. 2006;295:1281-1287.
Context Not all research presented at scientific meetings is subsequently published and, even when it is, there may be inconsistencies between these results and what is ultimately printed. Although late-breaking trials sessions are now integrated into several major scientific meetings and the results are often promptly and prominently communicated, no studies have examined the publication fate and degree of consistency between meeting abstracts or presentations and subsequent full-length article publications for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at these sessions.
Objective To compare RCT abstracts presented in the late-breaking trials session vs other sessions at a major scientific meeting and subsequent full-length publications.
Design RCTs were identified by hand searching abstract proceedings booklets and related Web sites for the American College of Cardiology scientific meetings (1999-2002). Subsequent full-length articles were identified via electronic databases.
Main Outcome Measures Publication fate and degree of consistency between meeting abstract results and subsequent full-length publication results.
Results The 86 late-breaking RCTs were significantly larger (median, 2737 patients vs 896; P<.001), were more likely to be preceded by a published design paper (27 [31%] vs 13 [13%]; P = .002), had higher quality scores when eventually published (mean Jadad score 2.69 vs 2.19; P = .01), and were less likely to report favorable results for the intervention than the 100 randomly chosen comparison RCTs presented in other sessions (50 [58%] vs 75 [75%]; P = .01; odds ratio 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.90). RCTs presented at the late-breaking trials sessions were significantly more likely to be published (79 [92%] vs 69 [69%]; P<.001) and appeared earlier after presentation (median 11.5 months vs 22.0 months; P<.001) than RCTs presented in other sessions, an association that persisted even after adjusting for sample size, conclusion of study, and RCT design: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.61). Sixty (41%) of the 148 RCTs that were subsequently published exhibited discrepancies between the efficacy estimate reported in the meeting abstract vs the one reported in the full-length article for the primary outcome. The mean change in effect was 0.44 SDs and in 20 cases (14%), the point estimate was statistically significant in only 1 member of the pair. The discrepancy rate was the same for late-breaking RCTs as for RCTs presented in other American College of Cardiology sessions (P = .92).
Conclusions Late-breaking trials were larger, more likely to be preceded by a design paper, and less likely to report positive results than RCTs presented at other sessions, but discrepancies between the meeting abstract results and subsequent full-length publication results were common even for late-breaking trials.
Author Affiliations: The Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta (Drs Toma and McAlister); The Capital Health Evidence-Based Practice Center (Dr McAlister, Ms Bialy, and Ms Adams, and Mr Vandermeer); and The Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta (Dr Armstrong), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Comparison of Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Articles
Chi-Tai Fang and Loreen Y. L. Huang
JAMA. 2006;296(6):653.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic?
Woloshin et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2009;150:613-618.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Peer Review in Publication: Factors Associated with the Full-Length Publication of Studies Presented in Abstract Form at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making
Greenberg et al.
Med Decis Making 2008;28:938-942.
ABSTRACT
Consistency of Phase III Clinical Trial Abstracts Presented at an Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Compared With Their Subsequent Full-Text Publications
Tam and Hotte
JCO 2008;26:2205-2211.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts
Hopewell et al.
Journal of Information Science 2008;34:162-173.
ABSTRACT
Review: Atypical antipsychotics are effective adjuncts for treatment resistant depression but increase discontinuation due to adverse effects
Cipriani et al.
Evid. Based Ment. Health 2008;11:14-14.
FULL TEXT
Meta-analysis of randomized trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction
Kastrati et al.
Eur Heart J 2007;28:2706-2713.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Review: Benzodiazepines in generalized anxiety disorder: heterogeneity of outcomes based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
Martin et al.
J Psychopharmacol 2007;21:774-782.
ABSTRACT
How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis
Shojania et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;147:224-233.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Role of Vitamin D and Calcium in Type 2 Diabetes. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Pittas et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2007;92:2017-2029.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Coronary Angiography Following Acute Myocardial Infarction in Ontario, Canada
Singh et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:808-813.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Update in Critical Care 2006
Milbrandt et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2007;175:638-648.
FULL TEXT
Meta-analysis: efficacy and safety of inhaled insulin therapy in adults with diabetes mellitus.
Ceglia et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2006;145:665-675.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical decision-making based on findings presented in conference abstracts: is it safe for our patients?
Falagas and Rosmarakis
Eur Heart J 2006;27:2038-2039.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of meeting abstracts and subsequent articles.
Fang and Huang
JAMA 2006;296:653-653.
FULL TEXT
What's new in the other general journals.
Tonks
BMJ 2006;332:713-714.
FULL TEXT
|
