Korean J Urol.  2012 Apr;53(4):280-284.

Fate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Korean Urological Association

• Chung JH
• Autorino R
• Kang DH
• Lee JY
• Moon HS
• Choi HY
• Lee SW

Abstract

PURPOSE
The acceptance rate for journal publication of the abstracts presented at the annual Korean Urological Association (KUA) meeting, the time to publication, and the effect of abstract characteristics on the publication pattern were analyzed and compared with data for abstracts from other major urological meetings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 1,005 abstracts listed in the abstract books of the 2006 (58th) and 2007 (59th) annual KUA meetings were analyzed, and their subsequent publication as listed in PubMed or KoreaMed between August 2006 and August 2011 was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 41.59% of abstracts were published as full-length reports. Abstracts on sexual dysfunction, neurourology, prostate cancer, basic research, and benign prostatic hyperplasia showed the highest publication rates (54%, 52.27%, 48%, 47.56%, and 45%, respectively). It took 19.01+/-12.83 months on average for abstracts to be published in a journal, whereas it took 25.24+/-14.64 months and 17.51+/-11.89 months for publication in foreign and Korean journals, respectively (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately 40% of studies presented as abstracts at the KUA meeting are subsequently published as full-length articles. The KJU is the most targeted journal. The mean time to publication is 1.5 years, and publication seems to be influenced by the study subject.

Keyword

Abstracts; Journal article; Peer review, research

MeSH Terms

Peer Review, Research
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Prostatic Neoplasms
Publications

Figure

• 

  FIG. 1 Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon analysis of the publication rate as the time elapsed after the abstracts were presented (A) and the publication rate in domestic and foreign journals (B).

• 

  FIG. 2 Journals in which abstracts of the KUA annual meeting were published. KJU, Korean Journal of Urology; INJ, International Neurourology Journal; KJA, Korean Journal of Anesthesiology; JKMS, Journal of Korean Medical Science; J Urol, The Journal of Urology; J Sex Med, Journal of Sexual Medicine; BJUI, British Journal of Urology International; IJU, International Journal of Urology; YMJ, Younsei Medical Journal; Urol Int, Urologia Internationalis; etcs, other urology journals; Others, non-urology journals.

Reference

1. Stolk P, Egberts AC, Leufkens HG. Fate of abstracts presented at five International Conferences on Pharmacoepidemiology (ICPE): 1995-1999. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002. 11:105–111.

2. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007. (2):MR000005.

3. Ng L, Hersey K, Fleshner N. Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. BJU Int. 2004. 94:79–81.

4. Autorino R, Quarto G, Di Lorenzo G, De Sio M, Damiano R. Are abstracts presented at the EAU meeting followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals? A critical analysis. Eur Urol. 2007. 51:833–840.

5. Autorino R, Quarto G, Di Lorenzo G, Giugliano F, Quattrone C, Neri F, et al. What happens to the abstracts presented at the Societè Internationale d'Urologie meeting? Urology. 2008. 71:367–371.

6. Autorino R, Quarto G, Sio MD, Lima E, Quarto E, Damiano R, et al. Fate of abstracts presented at the World Congress of Endourology: are they followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals? J Endourol. 2006. 20:996–1001.

7. Rao AR, Beatty JD, Laniado M, Motiwala HG, Karim OM. Publication rate of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons Annual Meeting. BJU Int. 2006. 97:306–309.

8. Hoag CC, Elterman DS, Macneily AE. Abstracts presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting: determinants of subsequent peer reviewed publication. J Urol. 2006. 176(6 Pt 1):2624–2629.

9. Smith WA, Cancel QV, Tseng TY, Sultan S, Vieweg J, Dahm P. Factors associated with the full publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 2007. 177:1084–1088.

10. Cartwright R, Khoo AK, Cardozo L. Publish or be damned? The fate of abstracts presented at the International Continence Society Meeting 2003. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007. 26:154–157.

11. Gourtaud G, Bruyère F. What is the publication rate of papers presented at the French Association of Urology annual conferences? Prog Urol. 2009. 19:60–64.

12. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA. 1998. 280:257–259.

13. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992. 267:374–378.

14. Arrivé L, Boelle PY, Dono P, Lewin M, Monnier-Cholley L, Tubiana JM. Subsequent publication of orally presented original studies within 5 years after 1995 RSNA Scientific Assembly. Radiology. 2004. 232:101–106.

15. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc. 2003. 91:42–46.

16. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA. 1998. 280:254–257.

17. Berry E, Kelly S, Hutton J, Harris KM, Smith MA. Identifying studies for systematic reviews. An example from medical imaging. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000. 16:668–672.