RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Joint Cerebrovascular (CV) Section serves as a centralized entity for the dissemination of information related to CV neurosurgery. The quality of scientific conferences, such as the CV Section's Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery Annual Meeting, can be gauged by the number of poster and oral presentations that are published in peer-reviewed journals. However, publication rates from the CV Section's meetings are unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the rate at which abstracts presented at the AANS/CNS CV Section Annual Meeting from 2014 to 2018 were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS: The abstract titles for all accepted poster and oral podium presentation abstracts from the 2014-2018 Annual Joint AANS/CNS CV Section Meetings were searched using PubMed. A match was defined as sufficient similarity between the abstract and its corresponding journal publication with regard to title, authors, methods, and results. Five-year impact factors (IFs) from Journal Citation Reports (JCR), the country of the corresponding author, and the number of citations in the Scopus database were obtained using the articles' digital object identifier when available, or the exact article title, journal, and year of publication. RESULTS: Of the 607 total poster and oral presentations from the 2014-2018 Annual Meetings of the AANS/CNS Joint CV Section, 46.29% (n = 281) have been published. Published articles received 3233 total citations for an average number of citations per article (± SD) of 10.89 ± 16.37. The average 5-year JCR IF of published studies was 4.64 ± 3.13. Additionally, 98.22% of published abstracts were in publication within 4 years from the time the abstract was presented. The most common peer-reviewed neurosurgical journals featuring these publications were the Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, Neurosurgery, and the Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of all poster and oral presentations at the annual meetings of the AANS/CNS Joint CV Section from 2014 to 2018 have been published in PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed journals. The average number of citations per publication (10.89 ± 16.37) reflects the high quality of abstracts accepted for presentation. It is important to continuously assess the quality of research presented at national conferences to ensure that standards are being maintained for the advancement of clinical practice in a given area of medicine. Conference abstract publication rates in peer-reviewed journals represent a way in which research quality can be gauged, and the authors encourage others to conduct similar investigations in their subspecialty area of interest and/or practice.

RESUMEN

Background: Although scientific researchers aim to present their projects at academic conferences as a step toward publication, not all projects mature to become a peer-reviewed manuscript. The publication rate of meetings can be utilized to assess the quality of presented research. Our objective was to evaluate the contemporary publication rate of abstracts presented at spine conferences. Methods: We reviewed annual meeting programs of North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Spine Global Spine Congress (GSC), Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS), and Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) from 2017 to 2019. Abstracts were identified as published from PubMed and Google search. From published manuscripts, journal name and open access status was collected. Journal impact factors were collected from the 2021 Journal Citation Reports. Results: A total of 3,091/5,722 (54%) abstracts were published, ranging from 44.5% to 66.3%. Publication rate of posters and podiums ranged from 39.8% to 64.8% and 51.6% to 67.2%, respectively. Podium presentations were more likely to be published than posters (59.6% vs. 47.2%, p<.001). Only NASS (61.4% vs. 61.8%) and LSRS (64.6% vs. 67.2%) demonstrated similar publication rates for posters and podiums. Award nominated abstracts had a significantly higher publication rate (68.0% vs. 53.4%, p<.001). Among journals with an impact factor, the median overall impact factor was 3.27 and was similar between all conferences except GSC, which was slightly lower (2.72 vs. 3.27, p<.001). Conclusions: Fifty-four percent of abstracts were published with 3 societies (NASS, LSRS, and SRS) having rates of over 60%. Moreover, NASS and LSRS demonstrated high publication rates regardless of presentation type. These numbers are significantly higher than previous reports suggesting that these conferences allow attendees to review high quality evidence that is likely to achieve peer-reviewed publication while obtaining an early look at original research.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Research presentation has benefits, including CV building, networking, and collaboration. A measurable standard for achievement is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Expectations regarding the likelihood of publication are unknown for studies presented at a national surgical scientific meeting. This study aims to evaluate predictors of manuscript publication arising from abstracts presented at a national surgical scientific meeting. METHODS: Abstracts presented at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Meeting 2019 were reviewed. Identification of published manuscripts was completed using MedLine, Embase, and Google Scholar 28 months after the presentation to allow for time for publication. Factors evaluated for association with publication included author and abstract measures. Descriptive analyses and multivariable statistics were performed. RESULTS: 724 abstracts (160 podiums, 564 posters) were included. Of the podium presentations, 128 (80%) were published in a median of 4 months after the presentation. On univariable and multivariable analyses, there was no association between publication and abstract topic, gender, degree, number of publications, or H-indices of first and senior authors. 154 (27.3%) poster presentations were published with a median of 13 months. On univariable analysis, there was a statistically significant difference regarding the abstract topic (p = 0.015) and senior author degree (p = 0.01) between published and unpublished posters. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that colorectal surgery (OR 2.52; CI 1.02-6.23) and metabolic/obesity (OR 2.53; CI 1.09-5.84) are associated with an increased odd of publication. There was an inverse association with female senior authors (OR 0.53; CI 0.29-0.98), while additional degrees (e.g., doctorate and/or master's degree) of the senior authors were associated with an increased publication rate (OR 1.80; CI 1.00-3.22). CONCLUSION: 80% of podiums but only 27% of posters were ultimately published. While some predictors of poster publication were noted, it is unclear if these are why these projects fail to publish. Future research is warranted to determine if there are effective strategies to increase poster publication rates.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The founding of the International Congress for Early Onset Scoliosis (ICEOS) and first annual meeting in 2007 represented a significant milestone in advancing the care of patients with EOS. Due to the complexity and rarity of EOS, this annual conference is the premiere venue for physicians, researchers, and advanced practice providers to identify and understand the best treatments for children with EOS. This study examines the trend of various treatment modalities presented at ICEOS and the changes in research quality since its inception. METHODS: Podium presentations from the 2007 through 2021 ICEOS annual meetings were reviewed to determine the number of study patients, use of a study group, and key features of study design. Treatment strategies being evaluated were recorded and included non-operative treatments (casting/bracing), traditional growing rods (TGR), vertical expandable prosthetic titanium rib (VEPTR), Shilla growth guidance, magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR), and vertebral body tethering (VBT). Linear regressions were performed to analyze changes in research topic and study group utilization. RESULTS: A total of 532 abstracts were reviewed. An average of 97.5 ± 81.3 patients were included per study with a significant increase from 42.3 ± 89.7 in 2007 to 337.6 ± 587.4 in 2021 (r2 = 0.632, p < 0.001). A total of 130 (24.4%) abstracts resulted from multicenter study groups with the proportion increasing significantly from 13.0% in 2007 to 36.4% in 2021 (p = 0.039, r2 = 0.289). The majority (96.2%) of study group-based projects were from either the Growing Spine Study Group (GSSG), Chest Wall and Spine Deformity Study Group (CWSDG), Children's Spine Study Group (CSSG), or the Pediatric Spine Study Group (PSSG). Additionally, a significant increase in studies utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was observed (r2 = 0.336, p = 0.023). Significant increases in the proportion of presentations discussing MCGR (r2 = 0.738, p < 0.001) and VBT (r2 = 0.294, p = 0.037) as surgical treatments were observed. CONCLUSION: The trends in EOS device implantation observed in registry studies align with the trends in research presented at ICEOS including the increased proportion of studies focusing on MCGR and VBT over the past decade. An attempt to increase the quality of research presented at ICEOS through multicenter study groups, increased patient recruitment, and utilization of PROMs has been seen since its inception. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Anecdotally, female plastic surgeons are disproportionately underrepresented as speakers, moderators, and panelists at national and regional plastic surgery meetings. No studies have attempted to quantify female representation at Plastic Surgery The Meeting (PSTM). The objective of our study is to examine trends in female participation at PSTM. Names of participating plastic surgeons and their conference positions were obtained from PSTM meeting programs between 2015-2020. Conference positions included instructor, lead, lecturer, moderator, panelist, or other. Presentations were grouped as the following: conference/symposium; general session; instructional course; and lab. An automated gender assignment tool (gender-api.com) was used to determine the gender of participants. Descriptive statistics and trend analyses using Cochran-Armitage trend tests were performed. Between 2015-2020, 3,382 individuals (602 females, 17.8%) presented at PSTM in one of the instructional or moderating roles. Female presenters at PSTM increased from 60 (12.4%) in 2015, to 155 (26.5%) by 2020. The results for the proportion of females presenting in the general session and the instructional courses were statistically significant (p < .0001; p =.029), demonstrating a positive linear trend in the female proportions over the years. From 2015 to 2020, the proportions of females holding positions as moderators, panelists, and "other" increased significantly (p = .011; p = .011; p < .0001). Although female participation at PSTM has shown substantial growth over the last five years, there still exists a considerable gender imbalance. Notably, females were less likely to hold prominent positions, such as instructors, leads, or lecturers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Objectives include (1) To create an opportunity for students enrolled in pharmacy programs to enhance their presentation skills by delivering research podium presentations at a regional conference; (2) To probe students' experience about podium presentations at the inaugural American Association for the Advancement of Science Pacific Division (AAAS PD) - American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Students' Symposium; and (3) To introduce student pharmacists to science-oriented research. METHODS: The student presenters were asked to anonymously answer 15 questions before and after the symposium. Question topics included factual information about students' background and favorability perceptions about symposia. Scores were compared between pharmacy students and non-pharmacy students, and favorability ratings were compared before and after the symposium. RESULTS: Thirteen students delivered their podium presentations at the symposium entitled "Pharmaceutical Research and Development: From Bench to Patient-Centered Care" that was held in Pomona, California at the 99th Annual Meeting of the AAAS PD in 2018. Pharmacy and non-pharmacy students provided similar responses on favorability perceptions. Post-symposium perceptions were more favorable towards symposia compared to pre-symposium scores. CONCLUSIONS: Favorability scores revealed a positive perception of the event and what it offered in terms of scientific benefits, networking opportunities, and enhancing soft skills. Participating students had the chance to (1) prepare and independently deliver a podium presentation on pharmacy-related research topics at a regional meeting; (2) network and learn from each other and professionals in the audience about pharmacy research; and (3) practice soft skills such as communication, time-management, teamwork, scientific writing, and presentation skills.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The SRS annual meeting (SRS-AM) represents the pinnacle of research in the field of spinal deformity. Spine surgery research was historically based on single-surgeon experience, but an increasing number of abstracts presented at SRS-AM are conducted by multicenter study groups, which may have improved the quality of literature available to surgeons. We sought to determine the proportion of SRS-AM podium presentations (PP) resulting from study groups over a 15-year period. METHODS: 1874 PP from the 2005-2019 SRS-AM were reviewed to determine if they resulted from a study group or multicenter collaboration. Abstracts were also classified as pediatric- or adult-focused. Pearson correlations were calculated to analyze changes in the proportion of study group or multicenter PP. RESULTS: The number of SRS PP increased from 102 to 171 from 2005 to 2019. 381 (20.3%) PP were identified as a study group product, while 536 (28.6%) resulted from multicenter collaboration. The proportion of study group PP increased by 0.9% annually from 8.8 to 26.9% (r2 = 0.44, p = 0.007), while multicenter PP increased by 1.2% annually from 11.8 to 40.9% (r2 = 0.51, p = 0.003). A greater proportion of study group PP were level of evidence I or II studies compared to those not resulting from the work of study groups (53.8 vs 19.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SRS-AM PP resulting from research study groups and multicenter collaborations increased over threefold from 2005 to 2019. Spine surgeons are taking a more proactive approach to produce more generalizable research with higher level of evidence through multicenter study groups, allowing them to make more informed decisions to ultimately improve surgical outcomes for patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the publication rate of podium presentations from the North American Spine Society (NASS) annual meetings from the years 2009 to 2011. METHODS: In April 2015, a PubMed search was conducted using titles from the paper presentations as well as the authors. Of the search results that were found, the specific scientific journal in which the article was published was recorded. We analyzed further the top 4 destination journals and trends in publications in these journals over the study period. No study funding was obtained for this research, and there are no potential conflicts of interest or associated biases. RESULTS: Over the study period, 671 paper presentations were available and 342 were published (51% publication rate). The highest publication rate was from the 2011 annual meeting, with 55.3%, and the lowest year was 2010, with a rate of 46.43%. Spine (32.75%), The Spine Journal (19.01%), Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (7.31%), and European Spine Journal (6.73%) were the top 4 destination journals. Over the study period, we found a significant decrease in publication rate in Spine (P = .001) and a significant increase in publication rate in The Spine Journal (P = .003). There were no significant difference in publication rate over the study period in Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (P = .15) or European Spine Journal (P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to our knowledge evaluating the publication rate of podium presentations from recent North American Spine Society annual meetings. We found an overall publication rate of 51%.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Scientific congresses have become the most expedient method to communicate novel findings on any research topic. However, an important question is whether this information will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Our aim was to determine the publication rate of the abstracts presented at the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress and analyze factors that may influence this rate. METHODS: A total of 398 abstracts reported in the Abstract Book from the 2008 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress were examined and categorized by oral and poster presentations, topic, and the number of authors listed. A search in PubMed and Google Scholar for subsequent peer-reviewed publications was performed in September 2015. The time to publication after the meeting had been held; the type of journal and its impact factor at the time to publication were recorded for those abstracts that reached peer-reviewed journal publication. RESULTS: The overall publication rate for the 2008 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow oral and poster presentations was 45.20% after 7 years. The mean time to publication was 18.53 months, and the mean impact factor value was 2.32. Oral presentations were significantly better represented in journals than posters (64.40 vs. 35.40%, p < 0.001). Abstracts with a greater number of authors listed had better publication rates (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Less than half of the oral presentations and posters at the 21st European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow Congress were published in peer-reviewed journals. Oral presentations with a higher number of authors had an increased likelihood of being published.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Research projects are presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH). It is unknown how many achieve publication in peer-reviewed journals. We sought to determine current rates of publication of podium and poster presentations. METHODS: All ASSH podium and poster presentations from 2000 to 2005 were reviewed, and an Internet-based search using PubMed and Google was conducted to determine whether the presented studies had been published. Times to publication and journal names were recorded. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Fisher's exact test was conducted to compare current trends with previous trends. RESULTS: Of 1127 podium and poster presentations reviewed, 46% were published in peer-reviewed journals. Forty-seven percent of published presentations (242 presentations) were in Journal of Hand Surgery, and 11% (59 presentations) were in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. Forty-five percent of presentations were published within 2 years and 66% within 3 years. The publication rate for podium presentations was significantly higher than that previously reported for Journal of Hand Surgery, at 54% compared with 44% (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, fewer than half of the studies presented at Annual Meetings of the ASSH achieve publication in peer-reviewed journals. Presentations are most likely to be published within 3 years, and almost half are published in Journal of Hand Surgery.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There are currently no validated guidelines to assess the quality of the content and the delivery style of scientific podium surgical presentations. We have developed a simple, short, and reliable instrument to objectively assess the overall quality of scientific podium presentations. METHODS: A simple and efficient rating instrument was developed to assess the scientific content and presentation style/skills of the surgical residents' presentations from 1996 to 2013. Absolute and consistency agreement for the different sections of the instrument was determined and assessed overtime, by stage of the project and study design. Intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and reported using a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability for both absolute and consistency agreement was substantial for total score and for each of the 3 sections of the instrument. The absolute agreement for the overall rating of the presentations was .87 (.63 to .98) and .78 (.50 to .95), and the consistency agreement was .90 (.70 to .99) and .87 (.67 to .97) for the 2012 and 2013 institutional research presentations, respectively. Rater agreement for evaluating project stage and different study designs varied from .70 to .81 and was consistent over the years. The consistency agreement in rating of the presentation was .77 for both faculty and resident raters. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized methodological assessment of research presentations (SHARP) instrument rates the scientific quality of the research and style of the delivered presentation. It is highly reliable in scoring the quality of the all study designs regardless of their stage. We recommend that researchers focus on presenting the key concepts and significant elements of their evidence using visually simple slides in a professionally engaging manner for effective delivery of their research and better communication with the audience.

Asunto(s)