Background/Purpose: The presentation of scientific studies at major meetings serves to rapidly share study results with the scientific community. On the other hand, full-text publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals ensures the dissemination of science. This study examines the publication rate (PR) of meeting abstracts presented at the European Society for Surgical Research (ESSR) congresses and determines/compares the factors affecting the PRs. Methods: All presentations at the ESSR congresses held during 2008-2011 were retrospectively assessed. Manuscripts indexed in PubMed were included. The meeting year, journal impact factor (IF) in the publication year, study type, presentation type, time to publication and geographic origin of studies were assessed. Results: Among a total of 1,368 oral and poster abstracts, 48.7% (n = 391) of the oral presentations (OPs) and 29.7% (n = 168) of the poster presentations (PPs) were published in medical journals indexed in PubMed. The mean IF of the journals was 2.696 (0.17-14.95). The journals that published OPs had a higher IF than the journals in which PPs were published (2.944 vs. 2.118; p < 0.001). The PR was also higher in the OP group than in the PP group of journals (p < 0.001). The time to publication was 17.5 months (−166 to 82) and was shorter for PPs than for OPs (14.02 vs. 19.09 months; p = 0.01). According to the study type, experimental studies had a significantly higher PR (53.7%; p < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference in PR in terms of the prospective or retrospective nature of clinical studies. The clinical studies were also compared according to the IF values of the journals in terms of the prospective or retrospective nature of the study, and no significant difference was found (p = 0.62). Conclusion: The ESSR congress is an efficient meeting for researchers from varied surgical disciplines and has a PR equivalent to that of similar scientific meetings. The congress has achieved a PR of 40.9% over 4 years with an average IF of 2.696 and a mean time to publication of 17.5 months, which is equivalent to that of similar scientific meetings. OPs have a higher PR in journals with greater IF values as compared with PPs.

1.
Hackett PJ, Guirguis M, Sakai N, Sakai T: Fate of abstracts presented at the 2004-2008 International Liver Transplantation Society meetings. Liver Transpl 2014;20:355-360.
2.
Drury NE, Maniakis-Grivas G, Rogers VJ, Williams LK, Pagano D, Martin-Ucar AE: The fate of abstracts presented at annual meetings of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland from 1993 to 2007. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;42:885-889.
3.
Schulte TL, Huck K, Osada N, Trost M, Lange T, Schmidt C, Gosheger G, Bullmann V: Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Annual Congress of the Spine Society of Europe (years 2000-2003). Eur Spine J 2012;21:2105-2112.
4.
ESSR abstracts, A001-A193. Br J Surg 2008;95:1-104.
5.
ESSR abstracts. Br J Surg 2009;96:1-72.
6.
ESSR abstracts (oral presentations). Br J Surg 2010;97:S1-S58.
7.
ESSR abstracts (poster presentations). Br J Surg 2010;97:S59-S121.
8.
ESSR abstracts, oral sessions. Br J Surg 2011;98:1-48.
9.
ESSR abstracts, poster sessions. Br J Surg 2011;98:50-69.
10.
von Elm E, Costanza MC, Walder B, Tramèr MR: More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:12.
11.
Human Development Report 2014. Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. New York, United Nations Development Programme, 2014.
12.
Source Publication List for Web of Science®. Science Citation Index Expanded™. Thomson Reuters. 2015. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/.
13.
ResearchGate Academic Search Appliance. http://www.researchgate.net/.
14.
Durinka JB, Chang PN, Ortiz J: Fate of abstracts presented at the 2009 American Transplant Congress. J Surg Educ 2014;71:674-679.
15.
Donegan DJ, Kim TW, Lee GC: Publication rates of presentations at an annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:1428-1435.
16.
Fosbøl EL, Fosbøl PL, Harrington RA, Eapen ZJ, Peterson ED: Conversion of cardiovascular conference abstracts to publications. Circulation 2012;126:2819-2825.
17.
Castagnetti M, Subramaniam R, El-Ghoneimi A: Abstracts presented at the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) meetings (2003-2010): characteristics and outcome. J Pediatr Urol 2014;10:355-360.
18.
DeMola PM, Hill DL, Rogers K, Abboud JA: Publication rate of abstracts presented at the shoulder and elbow session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:1629-1633.
19.
Harris IA, Mourad M, Kadir A, Solomon MJ, Young JM: Publication bias in abstracts presented to the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2007;15:62-66.
20.
Montané E, Vidal X: Fate of the abstracts presented at three Spanish clinical pharmacology congresses and reasons for unpublished research. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:103-111.
21.
Timmer A, Blum T, Lankisch PG: Publication rates following pancreas meetings. Pancreas 2001;23:212-215.
22.
Greenberg D, Wacht O, Pliskin JS: Peer review in publication: factors associated with the full-length publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making. Med Decis Making 2008;28:938-942.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.