Publication Rate and Evidence-Based Evaluation of Abstracts Presented at the American College of Veterinary Surgeon's Annual Meeting

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 679-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan T. Torres ◽  
Ryan K. Dover ◽  
Joseph A. Sapora ◽  
Gabriella S. Sandberg ◽  
Steven C. Budsberg
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Evidence Based

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2010 Canadian Ophthalmological Society Annual Meeting

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Basilious ◽  
Ana Maria Benavides Vargas ◽  
Yvonne M. Buys
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Society Annual

scholarly journals High non publication rate from publication professionals hinders evidence-based publication practices: a replication study in Europe

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline M Marchington
Keyword(s):  
Publication Rate ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Replication Study ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Medical Publication ◽  
The Us ◽  
European Meeting ◽  
Professional Research ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

Background: Although publication professionals plan and facilitate the timely and high-quality reporting of clinical trial results, it has been previously shown that they are not as forthcoming when it comes to publishing their own professional research. The publication rate from abstracts presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) has been shown to be 2.4%. We performed a replication study based on the European Meeting of ISMPP to determine the equivalent publication rate. Methods: ISMPP European Meeting abstract lists (November 2011–January 2016), were searched in July 2016 and extracted into a copy of the original study spreadsheet. MEDLINE was searched in August 2016 to determine the publication rate. Results: From 2011 to 2016, 76 abstracts were submitted of which 60 were accepted (78.9%). We found three corresponding publications (publication rate 5.0%). Most studies were observational (50/60; 83.3%) and most abstracts included employees of medical communications agencies as authors (50/60; 83.3%). Most researchers were based in Europe (165/222; 74.3%) or the US (53/222; 23.9%). Discussion: This study confirms previous findings that the publication rate of member research from ISMPP meetings in the peer-reviewed literature is low. Members of ISMPP, and of other organizations who aspire to set professional standards, should be encouraged to conduct robust research and share it with the academic community.

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society Annual Meeting From 2008 to 2017

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Po Hsiang (Shawn) Yuan ◽  
Luke J. MacLean ◽  
Erica A. Li ◽  
Shelly Yin ◽  
Jonathan A. Micieli
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
North American ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
The North ◽  
Society Annual

scholarly journals Publication Rate and Impact Factor for Society of Military Orthopedic Surgeons. Annual Meeting Presentations, 2009–2013

2017 ◽  
Vol 182 (11) ◽  
pp. e1992-e1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Orr ◽  
John C. Dunn ◽  
Nicholas Kusnezov ◽  
Austin B. Fares ◽  
Brian R. Waterman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons

Publication Rate and Evidence-Based Evaluation of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Veterinary Orthopedic Society Conference

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (05) ◽  
pp. 333-339
Author(s):  
William S. Kettleman ◽  
Matthew C. Iuliani ◽  
Brenna G. Webb ◽  
Joselys M. Ceballos ◽  
Bryan T. Torres
Keyword(s):  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Veterinary Research ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Bibliographic Search ◽  
The Subject ◽  
New Research ◽  
Conference Publication

Abstract Objectives Scientific abstracts are a common method for disseminating new research. There is no information on the publication rate of orthopaedic surgery abstracts presented at the annual Veterinary Orthopedic Society (VOS) Conference. The objectives of this study were to document the publication rate, the publication timeline and the level of evidence (LoE) of abstracts presented at an annual orthopaedic meeting. Study Design All conference abstracts from the 2001 to 2014 annual VOS meeting were reviewed, and final publication was determined through a comprehensive bibliographic search. Results Over 14 conferences, 1,112 scientific abstracts were presented with an overall publication rate of 47%. The majority of abstracts had low LoE scores, and those abstracts were published less timely than ones with higher LoE scores. Once presented, most abstracts took 1 year to be submitted and 2 years to be published. Dog (45%) and ex vivo (19%) studies were the most common. Publication occurred most frequently in Veterinary Surgery (40%), Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology (17%) and the American Journal of Veterinary Research (12%). Conclusion The publication rate for abstracts presented at the annual VOS meeting is lower than those from a more generalized veterinary surgery conference. Publication occurs most frequently in a select group of journals, and the subject matter is limited in scope with a focus on dog and ex vivo studies. Overall, most abstracts presented at VOS contain a lower LoE.

Adoption of Evidence-Based Medicine in Clinical Laboratory Science: A Survey of the Prevalence of Systematic and Narrative Reviews

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-228
Author(s):  
Lauren N Pearson ◽  
Robert L Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Laboratory Science ◽  
Laboratory Science ◽  
The Past ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) play a critical role in evidence-based medicine. Objective To determine the publication trends of SRs in clinical laboratory science (CLS). Methods We searched Scopus to identify all reviews published in the top 20 CLS journals during the past 10 years (2008–2017). We determined year of publication, review type (systematic vs narrative), citations, and whether the review was accompanied by a meta-analysis (MA). Results We identified 2934 reviews. Of these, 2833 (96.6%) were narrative reviews, and 98 (3.3%) were SRs. A total of 67 (66.3%) of the SRs were accompanied by a MA. Three journals accounted for 68 of 98 (69.4%) SRs. The percentage of SRs (relative to all reviews) has increased during the past decade (P = .01). SRs were more frequently published in high-impact journals (P <.001). Conclusion The publication rate of SRs in CLS journals has increased during the past decade.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document