Abstracts Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting: Determinants of Subsequent Peer Reviewed Publication

Chris C. Hoag · Dean Elterman · Andrew E. MacNeily

99 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Urology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Writing and Publishing Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

PURPOSE: Abstracts submitted to medical meetings do not undergo the same critical peer review process as published manuscripts. Despite this limited scrutiny presented abstracts often influence clinical thinking and practice. Consequently the peer reviewed publication rate of abstracts becomes critical in judging the quality of this research. We determined this publication rate and factors influencing it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 1,584 abstracts presented at the 2000 American Urological Association Annual Meeting were reviewed and assessed for subsequent publication with a fixed MEDLINE search protocol. We searched for publications from January 1, 1999 to May 31, 2005. Abstracts were deemed published if 1) at least 1 author of the presented abstract was a manuscript author and 2) at least 1 conclusion in the presented abstract was included in the final publication conclusions. Publication rates according to mode and topic of presentation, country or state of origin and time to publication were calculated. Journal impact factors for publications were compared according to these variables. RESULTS: Of presented abstracts from the 2000 American Urological Association meeting 55% went on to successful publication, including 59% of podium, 55% of poster, 55% of unmoderated poster and 42% of video presentations. Mean time from presentation to publication was 17 months. The average journal impact factor was 3.2. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of presentations at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting is never subjected to or fails the critical peer review process. The overall journal impact factor for published manuscripts is modest. Meeting attendees should consider these observations when deciding whether to incorporate the findings of presentations into their clinical practice.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 99 citations exist upstream.

References

2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 1994Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts 1998Positive-Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research Abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting 1998Unpublished Research From a Medical Specialty Meeting 2000Short report: Do presenters to paediatric meetings get their work published?

Cited by

2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2018Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2012Conversion rates of abstracts presented at the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ) Annual Scientific Meeting into full‐text journal articles 2012What is the ultimate fate of presented abstracts? The conversion rates of presentations to publications over a five-year period from three North American plastic surgery meetings 2009The Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the 2003 Urological Brazilian Meeting 2009Publication Rates for Hip Surgery-Related Abstracts Presented at National and International Meetings 2010Publication rate of abstracts of papers and posters presented at Medical Library Association annual meetings

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.