Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T10:37:11.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paediatric abstract publication rates for the American Society of Echocardiography Meeting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2018

Adam Morrison ,
John Kelly ,
Brian Rivera ,
Carl H. Backes  and
Clifford L. Cua
Adam Morrison
Affiliation:
Heart Center, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
John Kelly
Affiliation:
Heart Center, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
Brian Rivera
Affiliation:
Heart Center, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
Carl H. Backes
Affiliation:
Heart Center, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
Clifford L. Cua*
Affiliation:
Heart Center, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
*
Author for correspondence: C. L. Cua, MD, Heart Center, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH 43205, USA. Tel: 614 722 2530; Fax: 614 722 2549; E-mail: Clifford.Cua@NatiowideChildrens.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Abstract presentations of scientific information at meetings are important for broadcasting new information. Publication of these studies should be the final goal, but minimal data exist documenting publication rates, especially for paediatric sub-speciality meetings. The goal of this study was to document the manuscript publication rate for paediatric cardiac echocardiography abstracts and to determine whether there were differences between abstracts that were published versus not published.

Methods

Paediatric cardiac echocardiography abstracts presented from 2007 to 2011 at the American Society of Echocardiography Meetings were reviewed. Characteristics of the abstracts were noted. A Medline/Pubmed search was performed using keywords, first author, and senior author criteria to determine publication. Fisher’s exact tests or χ2 tests were used for analysis.

Results

A total of 194 abstracts were reviewed. In all, 27 abstracts were oral presentations and 167 were poster presentations. A total of 124 abstracts were prospective studies and 70 were retrospective studies; 11 abstracts were basic science studies and 183 were clinical studies. Altogether, 25 abstracts dealt with three-dimensional echocardiography, 15 with fetal echocardiography, 56 with deformation analysis, 79 with standard transthoracic echocardiography, and 19 were in the other category. A total of 73 abstracts were subsequently published – with a 37.6% publication rate – 2.1±1.7 years after initial presentation. There were no significant differences in publication rates based on the above-noted variables.

Conclusion

A paediatric cardiac echocardiography abstract publication rate of 37.6% is comparable to previous published publication rates for other meetings. No differences in variables analysed were noted between published versus unpublished abstracts.

Keywords

Paediatric cardiac echocardiographypublication rateabstracts
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , May 2018 , pp. 692 - 696
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The article was presented at the American Society of Echocardiography Meeting, June, 2016.

References

1. Chand, V, Rosenfeldt, FL, Pepe, S. The publication rate and impact of abstracts presented at the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (1999-2005). Heart Lung Circ 2008; 17: 375–379.Google Scholar
2. Dahllof, G, Wondimu, B, Maniere, MC. Subsequent publication of abstracts presented at the International Association of Paediatric Dentistry meetings. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18: 91–97.Google Scholar
3. Macdonald, AL, Parsons, C, Davenport, M. Outcome of abstracts presented at the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons congresses (1999-2008). J Pediatr Surg 2012; 47: 386–390.Google Scholar
4. Manuck, TA, Barbour, K, Janicki, L, Blackwell, SC, Berghella, V. Conversion of Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine abstract presentations to manuscript publications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213: 405 e1–e6.Google Scholar
5. Fosbol, EL, Fosbol, PL, Harrington, RA, Eapen, ZJ, Peterson, ED. Conversion of cardiovascular conference abstracts to publications. Circulation 2012; 126: 2819–2825.Google Scholar
6. Abuzeid, W, Fosbol, EL, Fosbol, PL, et al. Rate and predictors of the conversion of abstracts presented at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress scientific meetings to full peer-reviewed publications. Can J Cardiol 2013; 29: 1520–1523.Google Scholar
7. Fernandez, RS, Rowe, A, Redfern, J, Neubeck, L, Briffa, T. Knowledge dissemination resulting from the Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Association annual scientific meetings. Heart Lung Circ 2011; 20: 19–23.Google Scholar
8. Winnik, S, Raptis, DA, Walker, JH, et al. From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citation. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 3034–3045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Wong, CX, Wong, MX, Wong, NX, et al. Impact of research presentations at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. Heart Rhythm 2009; 6: 1345–1348.Google Scholar
10. Scherer, RW, Langenberg, P, von Elm, E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 18:MR000005.Google Scholar
11. 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.Google Scholar
12. Goldman, L, Loscalzo, A. Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. New Engl J Med 1980; 303: 255–259.Google Scholar
13. Liu, L, Danziger, RS. Fate of conference abstracts. Nature 1996; 383: 20.Google Scholar
14. von Elm, E, Costanza, MC, Walder, B, Tramer, MR. More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 12.Google Scholar