Ciesla M C, Wojcik E M
Department of Pathology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois 60153, USA.
Diagn Cytopathol. 2001 Oct;25(4):265-9. doi: 10.1002/dc.2052.
The purpose of this study was to determine what factors influence the final publication status of cytopathology studies presented at national meetings. Abstracts involving cytopathology material were obtained from the following journals: Modern Pathology (volume 11, 1998), Acta Cytologica (volume 42, 1998), and the American Journal of Clinical Pathology (volumes 109 and 110, 1998). Using the National Library of Medicine Website, each abstract was searched by author and topic to determine if the study was published as a peer-reviewed article. The following parameters were evaluated: meeting where the abstract was presented, type of institution where the research was based, type of material used in the study, and application of ancillary techniques used in the study. The subsequent published articles were evaluated for journal and time to publication. Out of 257 studies presented in 1998, 85 (33%) were published in peer-reviewed journals by May 2000. The majority of papers were published in Diagnostic Cytopathology (n = 21), Acta Cytologica (n = 15), and Cancer (n = 18). The mean time for publication was 12.8 mo. The highest percentage of published studies was presented at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) meeting (50% of presented abstracts), followed by American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) (28%) and American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) (17%) meetings. Ancillary techniques were applied in 40 of 85 (47%) published studies, 27 of 85 (32%) articles focused on morphology, and 18 of 85 (21%) papers covered other topics (e.g., quality assurance (QA), cost, and role of cytology). In nonpublished studies (n = 172), special techniques were the main focus in 40%, morphology in 25%, and other topics in 35% of abstracts. The great majority (97%) of published studies were from academic institutions. Gynecological and nongynecological material were roughly equally covered in published and nonpublished studies. Only a relatively small percentage of presented studies was finalized in the form of peer-reviewed articles. Type of material and application of ancillary techniques do not significantly influence the outcome.
本研究的目的是确定哪些因素会影响在全国性会议上展示的细胞病理学研究的最终发表状态。涉及细胞病理学材料的摘要来自以下期刊：《现代病理学》（第11卷，1998年）、《细胞学报》（第42卷，1998年）和《美国临床病理学杂志》（第109卷和第110卷，1998年）。利用美国国立医学图书馆网站，通过作者和主题对每篇摘要进行检索，以确定该研究是否作为同行评议文章发表。评估了以下参数：摘要展示的会议、研究所在机构的类型、研究中使用的材料类型以及研究中使用的辅助技术的应用情况。对后续发表的文章进行了期刊和发表时间的评估。在1998年展示的257项研究中，到2000年5月，有85项（33%）在同行评议期刊上发表。大多数论文发表在《诊断细胞病理学》（n = 21）、《细胞学报》（n = 15）和《癌症》（n = 18）上。发表的平均时间为12.8个月。发表研究比例最高的是在美国和加拿大病理学会（USCAP）会议上展示的研究（展示摘要的50%），其次是美国细胞病理学会（ASC）（28%）和美国临床病理学家学会（ASCP）（17%）会议。在85项已发表研究中的40项（47%）应用了辅助技术，85篇文章中的27篇（32%）侧重于形态学，85篇论文中的18篇（21%）涵盖其他主题（如质量保证（QA）、成本和细胞学的作用）。在未发表的研究（n = 172）中，40%的摘要主要关注特殊技术，25%关注形态学，35%关注其他主题。绝大多数（97%）已发表的研究来自学术机构。已发表和未发表的研究中，妇科和非妇科材料的涵盖比例大致相同。只有相对较小比例的展示研究最终以同行评议文章的形式完成。材料类型和辅助技术的应用对结果没有显著影响。
