0
July 13, 1994, Vol 272, No. 2 >
ARTICLE | July 13, 1994

Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts: Title and subTitle BreakA Meta-analysis FREE

Patricia Langenberg, PhD; Kay Dickersin, PhD; Roberta W. Scherer
[+] Author Affiliations

Presented in part at the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, September 10, 1993.

Reprint requests to Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 660 W Redwood St, 228 Howard Hall, Baltimore, MD 21201 (Dr Scherer).


JAMA. 1994;272(2):158-162. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020084025
Text Size: A A A
Published online
Article
References

Objectives.  —To estimate the rate of full publication of the results of randomized clinical trials initially presented as abstracts at national ophthalmology meetings in 1988 and 1989; and to combine data from this study with data from similar studies to determine the rate at which abstracts are subsequently published in full and the association between selected study characteristics and full publication.

Data Sources.  —Ophthalmology abstracts were identified by review of 1988 and 1989 meeting abstracts for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Similar studies were identified either from reports contained in our files or through a MEDLINE search, which combined the textword "abstract" with "or" statements to the Medical Subject Headings ABSTRACTING & INDEXING, CLINICAL TRIALS, PEER REVIEW, PERIODICALS, MEDICAL SOCIETIES, PUBLISHING, MEDLINE, INFORMATION SERVICES, and REGISTRIES.

Study Selection.  —Ophthalmolgy abstracts were selected from the meeting proceedings if they reported results from a randomized controlled trial. For the summary study, similar studies were eligible for inclusion if they described followup and subsequent full publication for a cohort of abstracts describing the results of any type of research study. All studies had to have followed up abstracts for at least 24 months to be included.

Data Extraction.  —Authors of ophthalmology abstracts were contacted by letter to ascertain whether there was subsequent full publication. Other information, including characteristics of the study design possibly related to publication, was taken from the abstract. For the summary study, rates of full publication were taken directly from reported results, as were associations between study factors (ie, "significant' results and sample size) and full publication.

Data Synthesis.  —Sixty-six percent (61/93) of ophthalmology abstracts were published in full. Combined results from 11 studies showed that 51% (1198/2391) of all abstracts were subsequently published in full. Full publication was weakly associated with "significant" results and sample size above the median.

Conclusions.  —Approximately one half of all studies initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full-length reports. Most are published in full within 2 years of appearance as abstracts. Full publication may be associated with "significant" results and sample size.(JAMA. 1994;272:158-162)

REFERENCES

1 +
Dudley HAF.  Surgical research: master or servant. Am J Surg . 1978;;135:458-460.
2 +
Goldman L, Loscalzo A.  Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N Engl J Med . 1980;;303:255-259.
3 +
Meranze J, Ellison N, Greenhow DE.  Publications resulting from anesthesia meeting abstracts. Anesth Analg . 1982;;61:445-448.
4 +
McCormick MC, Holmes JH.  Publication of research presented at the pediatric meetings: change in selection. AJDC . 1985;;139:122-126.
5 +
Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K, et al.  A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA . 1990;;263:1401-1405.
6 +
Juzych MS, Shin DH, Coffey JB, Parrow KA, Tsai CS, Briggs KS.  Pattern of publication of ophthalmic abstracts in peer-reviewed journals. Ophthalmology . 1991;;98:553-556.
7 +
De Bellefeuille C, Morrison CA, Tannock IF.  The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presention and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol . 1992;;3:187-191.
8 +
Juzych MS, Shin DH, Coffey J, Juzych L, Shin D.  Whatever happened to abstracts from different sections of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 1993;; 34:1879-1882.
9 +
SM, Campbell FA, Lerman J.  Publication of abstracts presented at anaesthesia meetings. Can J Anaesth . 1993;;40:632-634.
10 +
Dirk L. Incidence of acceptance, rejection, resubmission, and nonpublication of full reports of research presented at academic meetings. Presented at the Second International Congress on Peer Review; September 10, 1993; Chicago, Ill.
11 +
Kahn HA, Sempos CT. Statistical Methods in Epidemiology . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1989;.
12 +
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR.  Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet . 1991;;337:867-872.
13 +
Dickersin K, Min Y-I, Meinert CL.  Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA . 1992;;267:374-378.
14 +
Dickersin K, Min Y-I.  NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials . 1993;; Doc 50. Serial online.
15 +
Begg C, Berlin J.  Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst . 1989;; 81:107-115.
16 +
Dickersin K, Min Y-I.  Publication bias: the problem that won't go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci . 1994;; 703:135-146.
17 +
Schuyler P, Dickersin K, Scherer R, Wright N. Identification of randomized clinical trials by means of MEDLINE. Presented at the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; September 10, 1993; Chicago, Ill.
18 +
Lefebvre C, Kelleher TA, Tihanov G. Identification of randomized controlled trials using MEDLINE: the situation in 1993. Presented at An Evidence-Based Health Care System: The Case for Clinical Trials Registries, National Institutes of Health, Office of Medical Applications of Research; December 6, 1993; Bethesda, Md.
19 +
Altman DG, Doré CJ.  Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet . 1990;;335: 149-153.
20 +
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG.  Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA . 1994;;272:125-128.
21 +
Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H.  Publication bias and clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials . 1987;;8:343-353.
22 +
 Instructions to authors. Arch Dis Child . 1985;; 60:90-91.
23 +
Dickersin K.  Research registers.  In: Cooper H, Hedges L, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis . New York, NY: Russell Sage; 1994;.
24 +
International Collaborative Group on Clinical Trial Registries.  Position paper and consensus recommendation on clinical trial registries. Clin Trials Meta-anal . 1993;;28:255-266.
25 +
Chalmers I, Dickersin K, Chalmers TC.  Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. BMJ . 1992;;305:786-788.
26 +
Easterbrook PJ.  Reducing publication bias. BMJ . 1987;;295:1347.

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

1 +
Dudley HAF.  Surgical research: master or servant. Am J Surg . 1978;;135:458-460.
2 +
Goldman L, Loscalzo A.  Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N Engl J Med . 1980;;303:255-259.
3 +
Meranze J, Ellison N, Greenhow DE.  Publications resulting from anesthesia meeting abstracts. Anesth Analg . 1982;;61:445-448.
4 +
McCormick MC, Holmes JH.  Publication of research presented at the pediatric meetings: change in selection. AJDC . 1985;;139:122-126.
5 +
Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K, et al.  A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA . 1990;;263:1401-1405.
6 +
Juzych MS, Shin DH, Coffey JB, Parrow KA, Tsai CS, Briggs KS.  Pattern of publication of ophthalmic abstracts in peer-reviewed journals. Ophthalmology . 1991;;98:553-556.
7 +
De Bellefeuille C, Morrison CA, Tannock IF.  The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presention and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol . 1992;;3:187-191.
8 +
Juzych MS, Shin DH, Coffey J, Juzych L, Shin D.  Whatever happened to abstracts from different sections of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 1993;; 34:1879-1882.
9 +
SM, Campbell FA, Lerman J.  Publication of abstracts presented at anaesthesia meetings. Can J Anaesth . 1993;;40:632-634.
10 +
Dirk L. Incidence of acceptance, rejection, resubmission, and nonpublication of full reports of research presented at academic meetings. Presented at the Second International Congress on Peer Review; September 10, 1993; Chicago, Ill.
11 +
Kahn HA, Sempos CT. Statistical Methods in Epidemiology . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1989;.
12 +
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR.  Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet . 1991;;337:867-872.
13 +
Dickersin K, Min Y-I, Meinert CL.  Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA . 1992;;267:374-378.
14 +
Dickersin K, Min Y-I.  NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials . 1993;; Doc 50. Serial online.
15 +
Begg C, Berlin J.  Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst . 1989;; 81:107-115.
16 +
Dickersin K, Min Y-I.  Publication bias: the problem that won't go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci . 1994;; 703:135-146.
17 +
Schuyler P, Dickersin K, Scherer R, Wright N. Identification of randomized clinical trials by means of MEDLINE. Presented at the Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; September 10, 1993; Chicago, Ill.
18 +
Lefebvre C, Kelleher TA, Tihanov G. Identification of randomized controlled trials using MEDLINE: the situation in 1993. Presented at An Evidence-Based Health Care System: The Case for Clinical Trials Registries, National Institutes of Health, Office of Medical Applications of Research; December 6, 1993; Bethesda, Md.
19 +
Altman DG, Doré CJ.  Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet . 1990;;335: 149-153.
20 +
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG.  Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA . 1994;;272:125-128.
21 +
Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H.  Publication bias and clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials . 1987;;8:343-353.
22 +
 Instructions to authors. Arch Dis Child . 1985;; 60:90-91.
23 +
Dickersin K.  Research registers.  In: Cooper H, Hedges L, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis . New York, NY: Russell Sage; 1994;.
24 +
International Collaborative Group on Clinical Trial Registries.  Position paper and consensus recommendation on clinical trial registries. Clin Trials Meta-anal . 1993;;28:255-266.
25 +
Chalmers I, Dickersin K, Chalmers TC.  Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. BMJ . 1992;;305:786-788.
26 +
Easterbrook PJ.  Reducing publication bias. BMJ . 1987;;295:1347.

Letters

Submit a Letter
CME Course for:


You need to register in order to view this quiz.


To understand the clinical management of acute heart failure syndromes.
Accreditation Information The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
To view and print your certificate and access a summary of your CME courses go to My CME.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Compression-Only CPR: Pushing the Science Forward
Cone
AAM 2010;304:1493-1495.
All you need to read in the other general journals
BMJ 2010;341:c5893-c1494.
Submit a Response

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

© 2012 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
Powered bySilverchair Information Systems