Dundar Yenal, Dodd Susanna, Williamson Paula, Dickson Rumona, Walley Tom
Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006 Summer;22(3):288-94. doi: 10.1017/s0266462306051166.
The aim of this study was to examine (i) the consistency of reporting research findings presented in conference abstracts and presentations and subsequent full publications, (ii) the ability to judge methodological quality of trials from conference abstracts and presentations, and (iii) the effect of inclusion or exclusion of data from these sources on the pooled effect estimates in a meta-analysis.
This report is a case study of a selected health technology assessment review (TAR) of a rapidly evolving technology that had identified and included a meta-analysis of trial data from conference abstracts and presentations.
The overall quality of reporting in abstracts and presentations was poor, especially in abstracts. There was incomplete or inconsistent reporting of data in the abstract/presentations. Most often inconsistencies were between conference slide presentations and data reported in published full-text articles. Sensitivity analyses indicated that using data only from published papers would not have altered the direction of any of the results when compared with those using published and abstract data. However, the statistical significance of three of ten results would have changed. If conference abstracts and presentations were excluded from the early analysis, the direction of effect and statistical significance would have changed in one result. The overall conclusions of the original analysis would not have been altered.
There are inconsistencies in data presented as conference abstracts/presentations and those reported in subsequent published reports. These inconsistencies could impact the final assessment results. Data discrepancies identified across sources included in TARs should be highlighted and their impact assessed and discussed. Sensitivity analyses should be carried out with and without abstract/presentation data included in the analysis. Incomplete reporting in conference abstracts and presentations limits the ability of reviewers to assess confidently the methodological quality of trials.
本研究旨在探讨（i）会议摘要和报告中呈现的研究结果与随后完整发表的论文之间报告的一致性，（ii）从会议摘要和报告中判断试验方法学质量的能力，以及（iii）在荟萃分析中纳入或排除这些来源的数据对合并效应估计值的影响。
本报告是一项针对一项快速发展技术的选定卫生技术评估综述（TAR）的案例研究，该综述已识别并纳入了来自会议摘要和报告的试验数据的荟萃分析。
摘要和报告中的总体报告质量较差，尤其是摘要。摘要/报告中数据报告不完整或不一致。最常见的不一致之处在于会议幻灯片报告与已发表全文文章中报告的数据之间。敏感性分析表明，与使用已发表和摘要数据的结果相比，仅使用已发表论文的数据不会改变任何结果的方向。然而，十个结果中的三个结果的统计学显著性会发生变化。如果在早期分析中排除会议摘要和报告，一个结果的效应方向和统计学显著性将会改变。原始分析的总体结论不会改变。
会议摘要/报告中呈现的数据与随后发表的报告中报告的数据存在不一致。这些不一致可能会影响最终评估结果。应突出技术评估报告（TAR）中纳入的不同来源之间发现的数据差异，并评估和讨论其影响。在分析中应进行包含和不包含摘要/报告数据的敏感性分析。会议摘要和报告中的报告不完整限制了评审人员自信地评估试验方法学质量的能力。
