CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 997Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.

Open access
Scherer, Roberta W, Langenberg, Patricia, von Elm, Erik·2007·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000005.pub3PMC PMC7073270
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries m

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.mr000005.pub3

Cites

255 of 255 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Intervention studies are especially prone to publication bias and poor replicability.

    “Several studies have found that intervention studies are particularly vulnerable to publication bias and for lacking replicability (Cuijpers et al., 2010; Scherer et al., 2007).”

    From Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer” (2016) · cites this paper as Scherer et al., 2007

    The discussion passage on randomized or controlled trials reports that positive results were associated with full publication and warns reviewers of interventions about publication bias (page not provided). It does not address replicability or establish that intervention studies are more vulnerable to publication bias than other study designs. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Findings from clinical trials are more likely to be published if results are statistically significant (p<0.05) than if they are not.

    “Several empirical investigations have shown that the findings from clinical trials are more likely to be published if the results are statistically significant (p<0.05) than if they are not [125],[206],[207].”

    From The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009) · cites this paper as [207]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Scherer, R. W., Langenberg, P., & von Elm, E.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • German Cochrane Center; Dept. Med. Biometry & Statistics; University Medical Center Stefan-Meier-Str. 26 Freiburg Germany 79104
ORCID
Scherer, Roberta W
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-04-18
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
MR000005-MR000005
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.mr000005.pub3
PMC
PMC7073270
OpenAlex
W1592653824
Cited by
997
References
255
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 67 · 2012: 43
FWCI
10.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2018-11-20)
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
publication bias, abstracts, time to publication, conference presentations, scientific conferences, positive results, randomized controlled trials, oral presentations, publication rates, systematic reviews, evidence base
MeSH terms
Congresses as Topic, Publishing, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Publication Bias, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic

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