Abstract to Publication in Microsurgery: What Are the Discrepancies?

Abstract

Background The American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery (ASRM) annual meeting is a forum to present new research abstracts prior to peer-reviewed publication. The aim of this study is to determine the conversion rate, discrepancies, and time between presentation and publication.

Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted cross-referencing ASRM abstracts presented between 2014 and 2018 with peer-reviewed manuscripts. The title and authors of the abstract and manuscript, the journal of manuscript publication, and time in months between presentation and publication were recorded. The conversion rate was calculated as the proportion of publications to abstracts. Major discrepancies were defined as changes in the purpose, study design, methods, sample size, statistical analysis, results, or conclusions. Minor discrepancies were defined as changes in the title or authorship.

Results Out of 667 oral abstract presentations, 361 (54%) resulted in publication. Of these abstracts, 53 were presented after their corresponding manuscripts were published. The mean conversion rate was 55.52 ± 10.17%. The mean time from presentation to publication was 13.83 months. Minor discrepancies were more frequent than major discrepancies (91 vs. 76%). The most common major and minor discrepancies involved changes in the results (63%) and authorship (79%), respectively. There was a significant association between the year of abstract presentation and whether the conclusion was changed (p = 0.001), but interyear relationships with all other discrepancies failed to reach statistical significance.

Conclusion Only around half of abstracts presented at the annual ASRM conference have reached full publication in peer-reviewed journals, and most are undergoing significant changes between presentation and publication. This may be due to panel discussions at meetings suggesting study modifications, as well as revisions after careful peer review. Altering surgical practices may not be recommended based on abstracts' content.

Keywords

microsurgery - research - publication

Authors' Contributions

R.S.M. collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data and wrote the manuscript. H.S.A. conceived and designed the study, wrote the manuscript, provided critical revisions that are important for intellectual content, and approved the final version of the manuscript. R.L.A. provided critical revisions that are important for intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Publication History

Received: 15 November 2019

Accepted: 21 April 2020

Article published online:
18 June 2020

• References

• 1 Peake M, Rotatori RM, Ovalle F, Gobble RM. Publishing Conversion Rates and Trends in Abstracts Presented at the American Association for Hand Surgery Annual Meeting: A Five-Year Review. Hand 2019; DOI: 10.1177/1558944719856632.
• 2 Tritz D, Bautista L, Scott J, Vassar M. Conversion of Skeletal Society of Radiology annual meeting abstracts to publications in 2010-2015. PeerJ 2018; 6: e5817
• 3 Tait MA, Petrus C, Barnes CL. Southern Orthopaedic Association Abstract Publication Rate. J Surg Orthop Adv 2016; 25 (02) 86-88
• 4 Rushing CJ, Merritt G, Amin T, Spinner SM. Publication Rates for Oral and Poster Abstracts from the American Podiatric Medical Association: 2010-2014. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2019; 109 (03) 226-230
• 5 Balasubramanian SP, Kumar ID, Wyld L, Reed MW. Publication of surgical abstracts in full text: a retrospective cohort study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006; 88 (01) 57-61
• 6 Denadai R, Araujo GH, Pinho AS, Denadai R, Samartine Jr H, Raposo-Amaral CE. Discrepancies between plastic surgery meeting abstracts and subsequent full-length manuscript publications. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2016; 40 (05) 778-784
• 7 Theman TA, Labow BI, Taghinia A. Discrepancies between meeting abstracts and subsequent full text publications in hand surgery. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (08) 1585-90.e3
• 8 Williams S, Pirlamarla A, Rahal W. , et al. How well do they convert? Trending ASAPS presentations to publication from 1995-2010. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (02) NP15-NP19
• 9 Devauchelle B, Badet L, Lengelé B. , et al. First human face allograft: early report. Lancet 2006; 368 (9531): 203-209
• 10 Kain N, Mishra A, McArthur P. Are we still publishing our presented abstracts from the British Association of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (BAPRAS)?. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63 (09) 1572-1573
• 11 Cooper MN, Daneshgaran G, Yu R. , et al. Analysis of the microsurgery match from 2014 to 2018 reveals increased competition for microsurgery fellowship positions. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35 (09) 662-668
• 12 Peng PH, Wasserman JM, Rosenfeld RM. Factors influencing publication of abstracts presented at the AAO-HNS Annual Meeting. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 135 (02) 197-203
• 13 Denadai R, Pinho AS, Samartine H, Denadai R, Raposo-Amaral CE. Conversion of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscripts: a brazilian perspective. Rev Col Bras Cir 2017; 44 (01) 17-26
• 14 Gregory TN, Liu T, Machuk A, Arneja JS. What is the ultimate fate of presented abstracts? The conversion rates of presentations to publications over a five-year period from three North American plastic surgery meetings. Can J Plast Surg 2012; 20 (01) 33-36
• 15 Oliver DW, Whitaker IS, Chohan DP. Publication rates for abstracts presented at the British Association of Plastic Surgeons meetings: how do we compare with other specialties?. Br J Plast Surg 2003; 56 (02) 158-160
• 16 Scherer RW, Ugarte-Gil C, Schmucker C, Meerpohl JJ. Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68 (07) 803-810
• 17 Sprague S, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ. , et al. Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (01) 158-163
• 18 Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. FASEB J 2005; 19 (07) 673-680
• 19 Cartwright R, Khoo AK, Cardozo L. Publish or be damned? The fate of abstracts presented at the International Continence Society Meeting 2003. Neurourol Urodyn 2007; 26 (02) 154-157
• 20 Jasko JJ, Wood JH, Schwartz HS. Publication rates of abstracts presented at annual musculoskeletal tumor society meetings. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (415) 98-103
• 21 Durani P, Rimouche S, Ross G. ‘How many plastic surgeons does it take to write a research article?’ - Authorship proliferation in and internationalisation of the plastic surgery literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60 (08) 956-957
• 22 Preston CF, Bhandari M, Fulkerson E, Ginat D, Egol KA, Koval KJ. The consistency between scientific papers presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and their subsequent full-text publication. J Orthop Trauma 2006; 20 (02) 129-133