Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2001

Open Access 01-12-2001 | Research article

Determinants of abstract acceptance for the Digestive Diseases Week – a cross sectional study

Authors: Antje Timmer, Robert J Hilsden, Lloyd R Sutherland

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2001

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Digestive Diseases Week (DDW) is the major meeting for presentation of research in gastroenterology. The acceptance of an abstract for presentation at this meeting is the most important determinant of subsequent full publication. We wished to examine the determinants of abstract acceptance for this meeting.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was performed, based on abstracts submitted to the DDW. All 17,205 abstracts submitted from 1992 to 1995 were reviewed for acceptance, country of origin and research type (controlled clinical trials (CCT), other clinical research (OCR), basic science (BSS)). A random sub-sample (n = 1,000) was further evaluated for formal abstract quality, statistical significance of study results and sample size.

Results

326 CCT, 455 OCR and 219 BSS abstracts were evaluated in detail. Abstracts from N/W Europe (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3–0.6), S/E Europe (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.6) and non-Western countries (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.5) were less likely to be accepted than North-American contributions when controlling for research type. In addition, the OR for the acceptance for studies with negative results as compared to those with positive results was 0.4 (95% CI 0.3–0.7). A high abstract quality score was also weakly associated with acceptance rates (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–2.0).

Conclusions

North-American contributions and reports with statistically positive results have higher acceptance rates at the AGA. Formal abstract quality was also predictive for acceptance.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Duchini A, Genta RM: From abstract to peer-reviewed article: the fate of abstracts submitted to the DDW. Gastroenterology. 1997, 112: A12- Duchini A, Genta RM: From abstract to peer-reviewed article: the fate of abstracts submitted to the DDW. Gastroenterology. 1997, 112: A12-
2.
go back to reference Timmer A, Blum T, Lankisch PG: Publication bias in gastroenterological research. Pancreas. 2001, 23: 212-215. 10.1097/00006676-200108000-00012.CrossRefPubMed Timmer A, Blum T, Lankisch PG: Publication bias in gastroenterological research. Pancreas. 2001, 23: 212-215. 10.1097/00006676-200108000-00012.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994, 272: 158-162. 10.1001/jama.272.2.158.CrossRefPubMed Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994, 272: 158-162. 10.1001/jama.272.2.158.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference De Bellefeuille C, Morrison CA, Tannock IF: The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol. 1992, 3: 187-191.PubMed De Bellefeuille C, Morrison CA, Tannock IF: The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol. 1992, 3: 187-191.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith HJ: Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987, 8: 343-353. 10.1016/0197-2456(87)90155-3.CrossRefPubMed Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith HJ: Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987, 8: 343-353. 10.1016/0197-2456(87)90155-3.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference McCormick MC, Holmes JH: Publication of research presented at the pediatric meetings. Change in selection. Am J Dis Child. 1985, 139: 122-126.CrossRefPubMed McCormick MC, Holmes JH: Publication of research presented at the pediatric meetings. Change in selection. Am J Dis Child. 1985, 139: 122-126.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Goldman L, Loscalzo A: Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N Engl J Med. 1980, 303: 255-259.CrossRefPubMed Goldman L, Loscalzo A: Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N Engl J Med. 1980, 303: 255-259.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G: Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA. 1998, 280: 254-257. 10.1001/jama.280.3.254.CrossRefPubMed Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G: Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA. 1998, 280: 254-257. 10.1001/jama.280.3.254.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Conn HO: An experiment in blind program selection. Clin Res. 1974, 22: 128-134. Conn HO: An experiment in blind program selection. Clin Res. 1974, 22: 128-134.
10.
go back to reference Dickersin K: The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990, 263: 1385-1389. 10.1001/jama.263.10.1385.CrossRefPubMed Dickersin K: The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990, 263: 1385-1389. 10.1001/jama.263.10.1385.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Begg CB, Berlin JA: Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat A. 1988, 151: 419-463.CrossRef Begg CB, Berlin JA: Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat A. 1988, 151: 419-463.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL: Fundamentals of clinical trials. St. Louis: Mosby,. 1996 Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL: Fundamentals of clinical trials. St. Louis: Mosby,. 1996
13.
go back to reference Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, et al: Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess. 1999, 3 (i-iv): 1-98. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, et al: Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess. 1999, 3 (i-iv): 1-98.
14.
go back to reference Cho MK, Bero LA: Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA. 1994, 272: 101-104. 10.1001/jama.272.2.101.CrossRefPubMed Cho MK, Bero LA: Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA. 1994, 272: 101-104. 10.1001/jama.272.2.101.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature: A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical studies. Ann Int Med. 1987, 106: 598-604.CrossRef Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature: A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical studies. Ann Int Med. 1987, 106: 598-604.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Squires BP: Structured abstracts of original research and review articles. Can Med Ass J. 1990, 143: 619-622. Squires BP: Structured abstracts of original research and review articles. Can Med Ass J. 1990, 143: 619-622.
17.
go back to reference [Harenberg dictionary of countries, '94/95]. Dortmund: Harenberg Kommunikation Verlags- und Mediengesellschaft mbH &Co KG,. 1994 [Harenberg dictionary of countries, '94/95]. Dortmund: Harenberg Kommunikation Verlags- und Mediengesellschaft mbH &Co KG,. 1994
18.
go back to reference Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, New York, Tokyo: Oxford University Press,. 1989 Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford, New York, Tokyo: Oxford University Press,. 1989
19.
go back to reference Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE: Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. Belmont, California: Duxbary Press,. 1988 Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE: Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. Belmont, California: Duxbary Press,. 1988
20.
go back to reference Campbell FM: National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1990, 78: 376-382.PubMedPubMedCentral Campbell FM: National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1990, 78: 376-382.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y: Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994, 272: 149-151. 10.1001/jama.272.2.149.CrossRefPubMed Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y: Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA. 1994, 272: 149-151. 10.1001/jama.272.2.149.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Egger M, Zellweger-Zaehner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G: Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997, 350: 326-329. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7.CrossRefPubMed Egger M, Zellweger-Zaehner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G: Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997, 350: 326-329. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Sanberg PR, Borlongan CV, Nishino H: Beyond the language barrier. Nature. 1996, 384: 608-10.1038/384608a0.CrossRefPubMed Sanberg PR, Borlongan CV, Nishino H: Beyond the language barrier. Nature. 1996, 384: 608-10.1038/384608a0.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Frame JD, Francis N: The international distribution of biomedical publications. Fed Proc. 1977, 36: 1790-1795.PubMed Frame JD, Francis N: The international distribution of biomedical publications. Fed Proc. 1977, 36: 1790-1795.PubMed
25.
go back to reference Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J: Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995, 48: 159-163. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-B.CrossRefPubMed Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J: Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995, 48: 159-163. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-B.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Day M: The price of prejudice. The New Scientist. 1997, 22-23. Day M: The price of prejudice. The New Scientist. 1997, 22-23.
27.
28.
go back to reference Eloubeidi MA, Wade SB, Provenzale D: Factors associated with acceptance and full publication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001, 53: 275-282. 10.1067/mge.2001.113383.CrossRefPubMed Eloubeidi MA, Wade SB, Provenzale D: Factors associated with acceptance and full publication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001, 53: 275-282. 10.1067/mge.2001.113383.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B: The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994, 272: 143-146. 10.1001/jama.272.2.143.CrossRefPubMed Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B: The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA. 1994, 272: 143-146. 10.1001/jama.272.2.143.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
go back to reference Begg CB, Berlin JA: Review: publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989, 81: 107-115.CrossRefPubMed Begg CB, Berlin JA: Review: publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989, 81: 107-115.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Bero LA, Glantz SA, Rennie D: Publication bias and public health policy on environmental tobacco smoke. JAMA. 1994, 272: 133-136. 10.1001/jama.272.2.133.CrossRefPubMed Bero LA, Glantz SA, Rennie D: Publication bias and public health policy on environmental tobacco smoke. JAMA. 1994, 272: 133-136. 10.1001/jama.272.2.133.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Vandenbroucke JP: Passive smoking and lung cancer: a publication bias?. Br Med J. 1988, 296: 319-320. Vandenbroucke JP: Passive smoking and lung cancer: a publication bias?. Br Med J. 1988, 296: 319-320.
35.
go back to reference Koren G, Klein : Bias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research. JAMA. 1991, 266: 1824-10.1001/jama.266.13.1824.CrossRefPubMed Koren G, Klein : Bias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research. JAMA. 1991, 266: 1824-10.1001/jama.266.13.1824.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Panush RS, Delafuente JC, Connelly CS, et al: Profile of a meeting: how abstracts are written and reviewed. J Rheumatol. 1989, 16: 145-147.PubMed Panush RS, Delafuente JC, Connelly CS, et al: Profile of a meeting: how abstracts are written and reviewed. J Rheumatol. 1989, 16: 145-147.PubMed
37.
go back to reference Mahoney MJ: Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cog Ther Res. 1977, 1: 161-175.CrossRef Mahoney MJ: Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cog Ther Res. 1977, 1: 161-175.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Determinants of abstract acceptance for the Digestive Diseases Week – a cross sectional study
Authors
Antje Timmer
Robert J Hilsden
Lloyd R Sutherland
Publication date
01-12-2001
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2001
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-1-13

Other articles of this Issue 1/2001

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2001 Go to the issue