Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str, 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Apr 11;12:47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-47.
The preliminary results of a study are usually presented as an abstract in conference meetings. The reporting quality of those abstracts and the relationship between their study designs and full paper publication rate is unknown. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials are more likely to be published as full papers than observational studies.
154 oral abstracts presented at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention 2005 Oslo and the corresponding full paper publication were identified and analysed. The main outcome measures were frequency of publication, time to publication, impact factor, CONSORT (for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, STROBE (for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) score, and minor and major inconsistencies between the abstract and the full paper publication.
Overall, 76 of the 154 (49%) presented abstracts were published as full papers in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.946 ± 0.812. No significant difference existed between the impact factor for randomized controlled trials (2.122 ± 1.015) and observational studies (1.913 ± 0.765, p = 0.469). The full papers for the randomized controlled trials were published after an average (SD) of 17 months (± 13 months); for observational studies, the average (SD) was 12 months (± 14 months) (p = 0.323). A trend was observed in this study that a higher percentage of randomized controlled trial abstracts were published as full papers (71% vs. 47%, p = 0.078) than observational trials. The reporting quality of abstracts, published as full papers, significantly increased compared to conference abstracts both in randomized control studies (
5.7 ± 0.7 to 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.018, CI -2.7 to -0.32) and in observational studies (STROBE: 8.2 ± 1.3 to 8.6 ± 1.4; p = 0.007, CI -0.63 to -0.10). All of the published abstracts had at least one minor inconsistency (title, authors, research center, outcome presentation, conclusion), while 65% had at least major inconsistencies (study objective, hypothesis, study design, primary outcome measures, sample size, statistical analysis, results, SD/CI). Comparing the results of conference and full paper; results changed in 90% vs. 68% (randomized, controlled studies versus observational studies); data were added (full paper reported more result data) in 60% vs. 30%, and deleted (full paper reported fewer result data) in 40% vs. 30%.
No significant differences with respect to type of study (randomized controlled versus observational), impact factor, and time to publication existed for the likelihood that a World Congress of Sports Injury conference abstract could be published as a full paper.
研究的初步结果通常以会议摘要的形式呈现。这些摘要的报告质量及其研究设计与全文发表率之间的关系尚不清楚。我们假设随机对照试验比观察性研究更有可能发表为全文。
确定并分析了在 2005 年奥斯陆世界运动损伤预防大会上报告的 154 篇口头摘要及其相应的全文发表情况。主要观察指标为发表频率、发表时间、影响因子、CONSORT（临床试验报告的统一标准）评分、STROBE（观察性研究报告的加强标准）评分以及摘要与全文发表之间的细微和重大差异。
总体而言，154 篇口头摘要中有 76 篇（49%）以影响因子为 1.946±0.812 的同行评审期刊全文发表。随机对照试验的影响因子（2.122±1.015）与观察性研究（1.913±0.765，p=0.469）之间无显著差异。随机对照试验全文发表的平均（SD）时间为 17 个月（±13 个月）；观察性研究的平均（SD）时间为 12 个月（±14 个月）（p=0.323）。本研究观察到一个趋势，即随机对照试验摘要发表全文的比例（71%比 47%，p=0.078）高于观察性试验。与会议摘要相比，发表全文的摘要报告质量均显著提高，无论是随机对照研究（CONSORT：5.7±0.7 至 7.2±1.3；p=0.018，CI-2.7 至-0.32）还是观察性研究（STROBE：8.2±1.3 至 8.6±1.4；p=0.007，CI-0.63 至-0.10）。所有发表的摘要至少有一个细微差异（标题、作者、研究中心、结果表述、结论），而 65%有至少一个重大差异（研究目的、假设、研究设计、主要结果测量、样本量、统计分析、结果、SD/CI）。比较会议和全文的结果，90%的研究（随机对照研究与观察性研究）结果发生了变化，而 68%的研究结果发生了变化；60%的研究数据增加（全文报告了更多的结果数据），40%的研究数据减少（全文报告了更少的结果数据）。
世界运动损伤大会会议摘要发表全文的可能性与研究类型（随机对照与观察性）、影响因子和发表时间之间无显著差异。
