CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 308Academic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Writing and Publishing

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts: A Meta-analysis

Scherer, Roberta W.·1994·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020084025
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives. —To estimate the rate of full publication of the results of randomized clinical trials initially presented as abstracts at national ophthalmology meetings in 1988 and 1989; and to combine data from this study with data from similar studies to determine the rate at which abstracts are subsequently published in full and the association between selected study characteristics and full publication. Data Sources. —Ophthalmology abstracts were identified by review of 1988 and 1989 meeting abstracts for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Similar studies were identified either from reports contained in our files or through a MEDLINE search, which combined the textword "abstract" with "or" statements to the Medical Subject Headings ABSTRACTING & INDEXING, CLINICAL TRIALS, PEER REVIEW, PERIODICALS, MEDICAL SOCIETIES, PUBLISHING, MEDLINE, INFORMATION SERVICES, and REGISTRIES. Study Selection. —Ophthalmolgy abstracts were selected from the meeting proceedings if they reported results from a randomized controlled trial. For the summary study, similar studies were eligible for inclusion if they described followup and subsequent full publication for a cohort of abstracts describing the results of any type of research study. All studies had to have followed up abstracts for at least 24 months to be included. Data Extraction. —Authors of ophthalmology abstracts were contacted by letter to ascertain whether there was subsequent full publication. Other information, including characteristics of the study design possibly related to publication, was taken from the abstract. For the summary study, rates of full publication were taken directly from reported results, as were associations between study factors (ie, "significant' results and sample size) and full publication. Data Synthesis. —Sixty-six percent (61/93) of ophthalmology abstracts were published in full. Combined results from 11 studies showed that 51% (1198/2391) of all abstracts were subsequently published in full. Full publication was weakly associated with "significant" results and sample size above the median. Conclusions. —Approximately one half of all studies initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full-length reports. Most are published in full within 2 years of appearance as abstracts. Full publication may be associated with "significant" results and sample size. (JAMA. 1994;272:158-162)

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020084025

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 308

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Scherer, R. W.
Corresponding author
Scherer, Roberta W.
ORCID
Scherer, Roberta W.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1994-07-13
Volume
272
Issue
2
Pages
158
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1994.03520020084025
OpenAlex
W4294748706
Cited by
296
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 11
FWCI
23.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
JAMA (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (EY07766)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, ophthalmology research, sample size, peer review, scholarly publishing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review