Cited by 83Academic Writing and PublishingAcademic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

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

Rosmarakis, Evangelos S., Soteriades, Elpidoforos S., Vergidis, Paschalis I., Kasiakou, Sofia K., Falagas, Matthew E.·2005·The FASEB Journal

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1096/fj.04-3140lfe

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosmarakis, E. S., Soteriades, E. S., Vergidis, P. I., Kasiakou, S. K., & Falagas, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (GR)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
Venue
The FASEB Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-05
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
673-680
ISSN
  • 0892-6638 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-6860
OpenAlex
W2008016440
Cited by
83
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
27.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The FASEB Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kypseli (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
data discrepancies, infectious diseases, time to publication, antibiotic pharmacology, data accuracy
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Anti-Infective Agents, Communicable Diseases, Congresses as Topic, Microbiology, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Research, Research Design, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, MEDLINE

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