Purpose: Many abstracts presented at scientific meetings never come to full text publication, which is a prerequisite for the critical appraisal of a given study for its validity, impact and generalizability. We determined factors associated with the publication of abstracts presented at the American Urological Association national meeting. Materials and Methods: All abstracts addressing clinical research accepted for presentation at the 2002 and 2003 meetings of the American Urological Association were reviewed. A comprehensive MEDLINE® search was performed for evidence of publication in full manuscript form. Data abstraction and literature searches were done between June 15 and August 30, 2005. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between abstract characteristics and time to publication. Results: Of the 1,683 abstracts reviewed 740 (44.0%) were published within a median followup of 27.8 months (range 25.9 to 39.7). Time to publication was associated with abstract origin in the United States and the reporting of statistical testing (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.4, p = 0.040 and HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4, p = 0.010, respectively). Other variables, such as presentation type, study design, clinical question type and negative outcome, were not predictive. Conclusions: Nonpublication of research findings is a problematic issue that affects more than half of studies 2 years after presentation at the American Urological Association national meeting. Abstracts from the United States and those providing statistical testing were more likely to be published in full text form. Further efforts are warranted to identify and eliminate factors that hinder publication of research to bring it to the scrutiny of a broad audience of urologists.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||6|
|Journal||Journal of Urology|
|State||Published - Mar 1 2007|
- abstracting and indexing
- peer review
- publication bias