Article2005

From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals

Evangelos S. Rosmarakis · Elpidoforos Soterakis Soteriades · Paschalis I. Vergidis · Sofia K. Kasiakou · Matthew E. Falagas

83 citations0/0 files storedThe FASEB Journal

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 Academic Publishing and Open Access Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We studied the type and frequency of differences between data presented in conference abstracts and subsequent published papers in the fields of infectious diseases and microbiology. METHODS: We reviewed all abstracts from the first session of 7 of 15 major research categories presented in the 1999 and 2000 Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. For each selected pair of abstract and related published paper, two independent investigators performed a detailed data comparison. RESULTS: From 190 abstracts reviewed, 68 (36%) were subsequently published as full papers by March 2004. Fifty-two pairs referred to the same study population and period. Differences were found in 30 of 51 pairs, which were further analyzed (point estimate=59%, 95% C.I.: 45-73%). The identified differences were related to both the aims and conclusions of the study (3/30), the study conclusions only (2/30), numbers and/or rates of the studied patients (10/30), numbers or rates of microbiological isolates (9/30), MIC values or K(i) values (5/30), other pharmacological properties of antibiotics (2/30), odds ratio (1/30), and duration of observation (1/30). Some differences were considered major. In bivariable associations, time to publication (from presentation in the conference to publication of the full paper) was associated with identifiable differences between the conference abstract and the full paper (OR=1.76, 95% CI 0.95-3.24/year of delay, P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: It is reassuring that although we identified several reportable differences, only a very small proportion of studies exhibited differences in their aims and/or conclusions. Researchers may benefit from the above findings in improving the accuracy of presented data.

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 — 83 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine 1999Accuracy of Data in Abstracts of Published Research Articles 1999The fate of neuroradiologic abstracts presented at national meetings in 1993: rate of subsequent publication in peer-reviewed, indexed journals.1998Can the Accuracy of Abstracts Be Improved by Providing Specific Instructions?1998Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the orthopaedic research society

Cited by

2017A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research 2020Reporting of methodological studies in health research: a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC)2014Current findings from research on structured abstracts: an update 2019The state and development of research in the field of gifted education over 60 years: A bibliometric study of four gifted education journals (1957–2017)2010The quality of reporting and publication status of vaccines trials presented at veterinary conferences from 1988 to 2003 2007Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts 2014

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.