The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches
Open accessAbstract
Background: While identifying and cataloging unpublished studies from conference proceedings is generally recognized as a good practice during systematic reviews, controversy remains whether to include study results that are reported in conference abstracts. Existing guidelines provide conflicting recommendations. Main body: The main argument for including conference abstracts in systematic reviews is that abstracts with positive results are preferentially published, and published sooner, as full-length articles compared with other abstracts. Arguments against including conference abstracts are that (1) searching for abstracts is resource-intensive, (2) abstracts may not contain adequate information, and (3) the information in abstracts may not be dependable. However, studies comparing conference abstracts and fully published articles of the same study find only minor differences, usually with conference abstracts presenting preliminary results. Other studies that have examined differences in treatment estimates of meta-analyses with and without conference abstracts report changes in precision, but usually not in the treatment effect estimate. However, in some cases, including conference abstracts has made a difference in the estimate of the treatment effect, not just its precision. Instead of arbitrarily deciding to include or exclude conference abstracts in systematic reviews, we suggest that systematic reviewers should consider the availability of evidence informing the review. If available evidence is sparse or conflicting, it may be worthwhile to search for conference abstracts. Further, attempts to contact authors of abstracts or search for protocols or trial registers to supplement the information presented in conference abstracts is prudent. If unique information from conference abstracts is included in a meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis with and without the unique results should be conducted. Conclusions: Under given circumstances, it is worthwhile to search for and include results from conference abstracts in systematic reviews.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
Scientists rise up against statistical significance
Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9 · Cited by 2,983
Moving to a World Beyond “ p < 0.05”
Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913 · Cited by 2,976
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.
Scherer, R. W., Langenberg, P., & von Elm, E. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000005.pub3 · Cited by 997
Self-citationPublication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results
Hopewell, S., Loudon, K., Clarke, M. J., Oxman, A. D., & Dickersin, K. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000006.pub3 · Cited by 898
Dickersin, K. (1992) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480030052036 · Cited by 854
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640 · Cited by 818
McAuley, L., Pham, B., Tugwell, P., & Moher, D. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02786-0 · Cited by 812
Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.
Simes, R. J. (1986) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1986.4.10.1529 · Cited by 747
Publication bias and clinical trials
Dickersin, K., Chan, S., Chalmersx, T. C., Sacks, H. S., & Smith, H. (1987) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(87)90155-3 · Cited by 715
Cited by
Prayitno, Shyu, C.-R., Putra, K. T., Chen, H.-C., Tsai, Y.-Y., Hossain, K. S. M. T., Jiang, W., & Shae, Z.-Y. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app112311191 · Cited by 210
“Numerous considerations exist against the inclusion of conference papers in this study [36].”
The effect of sleep on novel word learning in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Schimke, E. A. E., Angwin, A. J., Cheng, B. B. Y., & Copland, D. A. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-021-01980-3 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Scherer, R. W., & Saldanha, I. J.
- Venue
- Systematic Reviews
- Published
- 2019-11-07
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 264-264
- ISSN
- 2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2988290606
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 6.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13643-019-1188-0
- The paper
- Scherer, R. W., & Saldanha, I. J. (2019). How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches. Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1188-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.