Egloff Heidi M, West Colin P, Wang Amy T, Lowe Katie M, Edakkanambeth Varayil Jithinraj, Beckman Thomas J, Sawatsky Adam P
Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Jan 30;32(6):673-678. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-3990-5.
Abstracts accepted at scientific meetings are often not subsequently published. Data on publication rates are largely from subspecialty and surgical studies.
The aims of this study were to 1) determine publication rates of abstracts presented at a general internal medicine meeting; 2) describe research activity among academic general internists; 3) identify factors associated with publication and with the impact factor of the journal of publication; and 4) evaluate for publication bias.
Retrospective cohort study.
All scientific abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine 2009 Annual Meeting.
Publication rates were determined by searching for full-text publications in MEDLINE. Data were abstracted regarding authors' institution, research topic category, number of study sites, sample size, study design, statistical significance (p value and confidence interval) in abstract and publication, journal of publication, publication date, and journal impact factor.
Of the 578 abstracts analyzed, 274 (47.4%) were subsequently published as a full article in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in MEDLINE. In a multivariable model adjusting for institution site, research topic, number of study sites, study design, sample size, and abstract results, publication rates for academic general internists were highest in the areas of medical education (52.5%, OR 5.05, 95% CI 1.57-17.25, reference group Veterans Affairs (VA)-based research, publication rate 36.7%), mental health/substance use (67.7%, OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.39-13.06), and aging/geriatrics/end of life (65.7%, OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.15-9.94, p = 0.01 across topics). Publication rates were higher for multicenter studies than single-institution studies (52.4% vs. 40.4%, OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.10-2.52, p = 0.04 across categories). Randomized controlled trials had higher publication rates than other study designs (66.7% vs. 45.9%, OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.30-5.94, p = 0.03 across study designs). Studies with positive results did not predict higher publication rates than negative studies (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.6-1.31, p = 0.21).
This study demonstrated that 47.4% of abstracts presented at a general internal medicine national conference were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in MEDLINE.
在科学会议上被接受的摘要通常随后不会发表。关于发表率的数据大多来自亚专业和外科研究。
本研究的目的是:1)确定在一次普通内科会议上展示的摘要的发表率;2)描述学术普通内科医生的研究活动;3)确定与发表以及发表期刊的影响因子相关的因素;4)评估发表偏倚。
回顾性队列研究。
在普通内科协会2009年年会展示的所有科学摘要。
通过在MEDLINE中搜索全文出版物来确定发表率。提取关于作者所在机构、研究主题类别、研究地点数量、样本量、研究设计、摘要和发表中的统计学显著性(p值和置信区间)、发表期刊、发表日期以及期刊影响因子的数据。
在分析的578篇摘要中,274篇(47.4%)随后作为全文发表在MEDLINE索引的同行评审期刊上。在一个对机构地点、研究主题、研究地点数量、研究设计、样本量和摘要结果进行调整的多变量模型中,学术普通内科医生在医学教育领域的发表率最高(52.5%,OR 5.05,95%CI 1.57 - 17.25,参考组为基于退伍军人事务部(VA)的研究,发表率36.7%)、心理健康/物质使用领域(67.7%,OR 4.16,95%CI 1.39 - 13.06)以及衰老/老年医学/生命末期领域(65.7%,OR 3.31,95%CI 1.15 - 9.94,各主题p = 0.01)。多中心研究的发表率高于单机构研究(52.4%对40.4%,OR 1.66,95%CI 1.10 - 2.52,各类别p = 0.04)。随机对照试验的发表率高于其他研究设计(66.7%对45.9%,OR 2.72,95%CI 1.30 - 5.94,各研究设计p = 0.03)。结果为阳性的研究与结果为阴性的研究相比,并未预测出更高的发表率(OR 0.89,95%CI 0.6 - 1.31,p = 0.21)。
本研究表明,在一次普通内科全国会议上展示的摘要中有47.4%随后发表在MEDLINE索引中的同行评审期刊上。