Wang Guanru, Chen Junsheng, Li Honglin, Miao Cheng, Cao Yubin, Li Chunjie
West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Department of Head and Neck Oncology, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
PeerJ. 2023 May 5;11:e15303. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15303. eCollection 2023.
There is commonly a discrepancy between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may mislead the scholars those attend conferences.
To identify the characteristics predicting inconsistency between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic RCTs.
The conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at the IADR general sessions from 2002 to 2015 were searched. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were conducted to match full-text publications for conference abstracts. Two investigators extracted basic characteristics and assessed the consistency and reporting quality independently and in duplicate. The linear regression model was used to analyze the predictors of inconsistency.
A total of 147 conference abstracts were matched with published articles. Results for the secondary outcome measure, Statistical analysis, and precision measure were less than 50% consistent, and even nearly 5% of the studies had opposite conclusions. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that three factors were correlated with lower inconsistency, including continent of origin ( = 0.011), presentation type ( = 0.017), and difference in reporting quality ( = 0.013).
Conference attendees should cautiously treat the findings of the conference abstracts. Researchers should improve the precision of the information delivered at conferences. We recommend the authors of RCTs to explain the primary difference between conference abstracts and article abstracts.
在口腔修复学随机对照试验（RCTs）中，会议摘要与已发表文章摘要之间通常存在差异，这可能会误导参会学者。
确定预测口腔修复学RCTs会议摘要与已发表文章摘要不一致的特征。
检索2002年至2015年在国际牙科研究协会（IADR）大会上发表的口腔修复学RCTs会议摘要。通过对MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌学术数据库进行电子检索，以匹配会议摘要的全文出版物。两名研究人员独立且重复地提取基本特征，并评估一致性和报告质量。使用线性回归模型分析不一致性的预测因素。
共147篇会议摘要与已发表文章匹配。次要结局指标、统计分析和精确性指标的结果一致性低于50%，甚至近5%的研究得出了相反的结论。多元线性回归分析表明，三个因素与较低的不一致性相关，包括来源洲（β = 0.011）、报告类型（β = 0.017）和报告质量差异（β = 0.013）。
参会者应谨慎对待会议摘要的研究结果。研究人员应提高在会议上所传达信息的精确性。我们建议RCTs的作者解释会议摘要与文章摘要之间的主要差异。
