Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Approximately half of randomised trials of health care interventions that are initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full reports1. This has implications for systematic reviewers who strive to obtain a complete, unbiased set of relevant trials. It is therefore of interest to assess the extent to which abstracts initially presented at the 1st Symposium of Systematic Reviews in January 1998 and the Cochrane Colloquium in October 1995 have gone on to full publication, to see if this phenomenon also applies in methodological research.
Methods: Full publication was assessed in three ways: a search was carried out of The Cochrane Library; a search for all authors was conducted using MEDLINE; and a questionnaire was sent to the contact author of each abstract asking if they had published as a full paper or, if not, their reasons for non-publication. A repeat questionnaire was been sent to all non-respondents.
Results: At the 1st Symposium 30 abstracts were presented, 7 of these were identified by MEDLINE and/or The Cochrane Library as having been published as full papers. In response to the questionnaire, 8 authors said they had published their abstract as a full paper, 5 said that a full paper had been accepted for publication and 6 had future plans to publish. 10 authors had no plans to publish. 61 abstracts were presented at the Cochrane Colloquium in 1995, 24 of these were identified electronically as having been published as full papers, and 2 were Cochrane protocols. As of 23 May 2000, 48 authors have responded: 23 said that their abstract had been published as a full paper, 5 said that they had future plans to publish and 20 said that they had no plans to do so. Combining the findings from both meetings, the reasons given for non-publication include limited scientific interest to a wider audience (11), publication perceived as low priority (6) and research findings being out of date (4).
Conclusions: This study suggests that the rate of full publication of abstracts related to the methodology of systematic reviews might be similar to that of randomised trials. 1. Scherer R, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1994;272:158-162.
Methods: Full publication was assessed in three ways: a search was carried out of The Cochrane Library; a search for all authors was conducted using MEDLINE; and a questionnaire was sent to the contact author of each abstract asking if they had published as a full paper or, if not, their reasons for non-publication. A repeat questionnaire was been sent to all non-respondents.
Results: At the 1st Symposium 30 abstracts were presented, 7 of these were identified by MEDLINE and/or The Cochrane Library as having been published as full papers. In response to the questionnaire, 8 authors said they had published their abstract as a full paper, 5 said that a full paper had been accepted for publication and 6 had future plans to publish. 10 authors had no plans to publish. 61 abstracts were presented at the Cochrane Colloquium in 1995, 24 of these were identified electronically as having been published as full papers, and 2 were Cochrane protocols. As of 23 May 2000, 48 authors have responded: 23 said that their abstract had been published as a full paper, 5 said that they had future plans to publish and 20 said that they had no plans to do so. Combining the findings from both meetings, the reasons given for non-publication include limited scientific interest to a wider audience (11), publication perceived as low priority (6) and research findings being out of date (4).
Conclusions: This study suggests that the rate of full publication of abstracts related to the methodology of systematic reviews might be similar to that of randomised trials. 1. Scherer R, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1994;272:158-162.