Meininger D, Bück M, Bohlmann S, Weber C F, Strouhal U, Ihlow K, Zacharowski K, Byhahn C
Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Anaesthesist. 2011 Feb;60(2):118-24. doi: 10.1007/s00101-010-1811-x.
The goal of the present study was to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented during the German Anesthesia Congress (Deutscher Anästhesiecongress, DAC) and the meeting of the European Society of Anesthesiologists (ESA) in the years 2000 and 2005 in Medline listed journals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed). In addition, the respective impact factors of the journals in which the articles were published were evaluated (http://www.isiknowledge.com).
All abstracts of free papers and posters presented at the DAC and ESA from the years 2000 and 2005 were included into the study. The presence of authors and the topics of abstracts in the literature were analyzed by a Medline based inquiry over a time period of 5 years. The search was based on the last name and initials of authors and when these could not be identified in Medline the search was extended by keywords of relevant topics of the abstract. Umlauts "ä/ö/ü" were replaced by "ae/oe/ue" and "ß" was replaced by "ss". Only original papers were included in this analysis. Once an original paper was found the impact factor of the journal in that year was identified.
A total of 465 abstracts from the DAC 2000, 378 abstracts from the DAC 2005, 644 abstracts from the ESA 2000 and 720 abstracts from the ESA 2005 were included. Of the abstracts from the DAC 2000, 183 (39%) were published in Medline listed journals, 179 (47%) from DAC 2005, 218 (34%) from ESA 2000 and 233 (32%) from ESA 2005. The ESA abstracts were published in English more often than the DAC abstracts (ESA 2000: 95%; ESA 2005: 95%; DAC 2000: 78%; DAC 2005: 86%). While the publication rate after the ESA remained nearly unchanged between 2000 and 2005, the publication rate after the DAC increased by about 7%. The average impact factors of the publications were 1.777 (DAC 2000), 2.836 (DAC 2005), 1.825 (ESA 2000) and 2.36 (ESA 2005). Independent of the congress (DAC or ESA) where the abstract was presented, most articles were published in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia.
In the year 2005 more abstracts of the DAC were published in Medline listed papers than in 2000. When comparing the number of abstracts published in Medline listed journals, more abstracts of the DAC were published compared to abstracts of the ESA. The increase in papers written in English after abstract presentation on the DAC is mostly due to the wider readership which can be reached with manuscripts in the English language. Besides a larger readership, English journals often also have a higher ranked impact factor. This analysis does not claim to be a complete registration of all published abstracts due to the limitation on Medline listed journals and publications in other journals were not rated. Medline was selected because of the widespread and international use of this database.
本研究的目的是评估在2000年和2005年德国麻醉大会（Deutscher Anästhesiecongress, DAC）以及欧洲麻醉医师学会（European Society of Anesthesiologists, ESA）会议上发表的摘要在Medline收录期刊（http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed）上的发表率。此外，还评估了发表文章的期刊各自的影响因子（http://www.isiknowledge.com）。
纳入2000年和2005年在DAC和ESA上发表的所有自由论文和海报的摘要。通过基于Medline的查询，在5年的时间内分析文献中作者的情况和摘要的主题。搜索基于作者的姓氏和名字首字母，若在Medline中无法识别这些信息，则通过摘要相关主题的关键词进行扩展搜索。变音符号“ä/ö/ü”替换为“ae/oe/ue”，“ß”替换为“ss”。本分析仅纳入原创论文。一旦找到原创论文，便确定该年份期刊的影响因子。
共纳入2000年DAC的465篇摘要、2005年DAC的378篇摘要、2000年ESA的644篇摘要和2005年ESA的720篇摘要。2000年DAC的摘要中，183篇（39%）发表在Medline收录期刊上；2005年DAC的摘要中，179篇（47%）发表；2000年ESA的摘要中，218篇（34%）发表；2005年ESA的摘要中，233篇（32%）发表。ESA的摘要比DAC的摘要更常以英文发表（2000年ESA：95%；2005年ESA：95%；2000年DAC：78%；2005年DAC：86%）。虽然2000年至2005年ESA之后的发表率几乎保持不变，但DAC之后的发表率提高了约7%。出版物的平均影响因子分别为1.777（2000年DAC）、2.836（2005年DAC）、1.825（2000年ESA）和2.36（2005年ESA）。无论摘要在哪个大会（DAC或ESA）上展示，大多数文章都发表在《麻醉与镇痛》杂志上。
2005年在Medline收录论文中发表的DAC摘要比2000年更多。在比较Medline收录期刊上发表的摘要数量时，DAC发表的摘要比ESA的更多。DAC摘要发表后用英文撰写的论文增加，主要是因为英文稿件能触及更广泛的读者群体。除了读者群体更大外，英文期刊的影响因子排名通常也更高。由于本分析限于Medline收录期刊，并不声称是所有已发表摘要的完整记录，其他期刊的出版物未作评估。选择Medline是因为该数据库广泛且被国际使用。
