Delay and failure to publish dental research

被引：22

作者：

Scholey J.M. ^{[1
]}

Harrison J.E. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, Liverpool University Dental Hospital and School of Dentistry, Liverpool, L3 5PS, Pembroke Place

来源：

Evidence-Based Dentistry | 2005年 / 6卷 / 3期

关键词：

Abstracts; Publication bias; Time lag bias;

D O I：

10.1038/sj.ebd.6400347

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

ObjectiveTo investigate the incidence and time taken to full publication of abstracts presented at dental scientific meetings.Design A retrospective observational study.SettingAll abstracts from the 1993 proceedings of the European Orthodontic Society (EOS) and European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) and a 10% random sample of abstracts from the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) conferences.MethodsA cross-referenced Medline search of abstract title and authors was undertaken to determine whether abstracts had been published as full papers. Searches were censored 1 year prior to and 5 years post publication as an abstract. Publication rate was compared between abstracts presented orally and as posters.Main outcome measuresPublication as a full paper and time taken to publication.Results546 abstracts were investigated. 252 abstracts (46.1%) were found as full reports. Median time to publication of all abstracts was 18 months (IQR 9, 30 months). 99 of the oral abstracts (57%) and 153 (41%) of the poster abstracts were published. Relative Risk Oral vs Poster=1.37 CI (1.19, 1.55).ConclusionMore than half of the research presented at EOS, IADR and ORCA in 1993 remained unpublished 5 years after presentation at the conference. Oral presentations were published more frequently than poster presentations. © 2005 EBD.

引用

页码：58 / 61

页数：3

共 18 条

[1]

Dickersin K., The existence of publication bias, risk factors for its occurrence, JAMA, 263, pp. 1385-1389, (1990)

[2]

Chalmers T., Frank C., Reitman D., Minimising the three stages of publication bias, JAMA, 263, pp. 1392-1395, (1990)

[3]

Scherer R.W., Langenberg P., Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Methodology Review), The Cochrane Library, 2, (2003)

[4]

Scholey J., Harrison J.E., Publication bias — Raising awareness of a potential problem, Br Dent J, 194, pp. 235-237, (2003)

[5]

Dickersin K., Scherer R., Lefebvre C., Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews, Br Med J, 309, pp. 1286-1291, (1994)

[6]

Watson R.J., Richardson P.H., Identifying randomized controlled trials of cognitive therapy for depression: Comparing the efficiency of Embase, Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic databases, Br J Med Psychol, 72, pp. 535-542, (1999)

[7]

Corry A.M., A survey of the publication history of randomly selected IADR/AADR abstracts presented in 1983 and 1984, J Dent Res, 69, pp. 1453-1455, (1990)

[8]

Dickersin K., Min Y., Meinert C., Factors influencing publication of research results, JAMA, 267, pp. 374-378, (1992)

[9]

Easterbrook P., Berlin J., Gopalan R., Matthews D., Publication bias in clinical research, Lancet, 337, pp. 867-872, (1991)

[10]

Cheng K., Preston C., Ashby D., O'Hea U., Smyth R.L., Time to publication as full reports of abstracts of randomised controlled trials in cystic fibrosis, Paediatr Pulmonol, 26, pp. 101-105, (1998)

← 1 2 →