Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Commentary

How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches

Authors: Roberta W. Scherer, Ian J. Saldanha

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

While identifying and cataloging unpublished studies from conference proceedings is generally recognized as a good practice during systematic reviews, controversy remains whether to include study results that are reported in conference abstracts. Existing guidelines provide conflicting recommendations.

Main body

The main argument for including conference abstracts in systematic reviews is that abstracts with positive results are preferentially published, and published sooner, as full-length articles compared with other abstracts. Arguments against including conference abstracts are that (1) searching for abstracts is resource-intensive, (2) abstracts may not contain adequate information, and (3) the information in abstracts may not be dependable. However, studies comparing conference abstracts and fully published articles of the same study find only minor differences, usually with conference abstracts presenting preliminary results. Other studies that have examined differences in treatment estimates of meta-analyses with and without conference abstracts report changes in precision, but usually not in the treatment effect estimate. However, in some cases, including conference abstracts has made a difference in the estimate of the treatment effect, not just its precision. Instead of arbitrarily deciding to include or exclude conference abstracts in systematic reviews, we suggest that systematic reviewers should consider the availability of evidence informing the review. If available evidence is sparse or conflicting, it may be worthwhile to search for conference abstracts. Further, attempts to contact authors of abstracts or search for protocols or trial registers to supplement the information presented in conference abstracts is prudent. If unique information from conference abstracts is included in a meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis with and without the unique results should be conducted.

Conclusions

Under given circumstances, it is worthwhile to search for and include results from conference abstracts in systematic reviews.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Balshem H, Stevens A, Ansari M, Norris S, Kansagara D, Shamliyan Try, et al. Finding Grey Literature Evidence and Assessing for Outcome and Analysis Reporting Biases When Comparing Medical Interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): 2008-AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. 2013. Balshem H, Stevens A, Ansari M, Norris S, Kansagara D, Shamliyan Try, et al. Finding Grey Literature Evidence and Assessing for Outcome and Analysis Reporting Biases When Comparing Medical Interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): 2008-AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. 2013.
2.
go back to reference (IOM) IoM. Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Washington, D. C: The National Academies Press; 2008. (IOM) IoM. Knowing what works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. Washington, D. C: The National Academies Press; 2008.
3.
go back to reference Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011.
4.
go back to reference Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2018;11:Mr000005. Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2018;11:Mr000005.
5.
go back to reference Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet. 2003;361:978–9.CrossRef Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet. 2003;361:978–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, Oeller P, Cabrera L, Bassler D, Schwarzer G, Scherer RW, Antes G, von Elm E, Meerpohl JJ. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One. 2014;9:e114023.CrossRef Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, Oeller P, Cabrera L, Bassler D, Schwarzer G, Scherer RW, Antes G, von Elm E, Meerpohl JJ. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One. 2014;9:e114023.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8:343–53.CrossRef Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8:343–53.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267:374–8.CrossRef Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267:374–8.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993. Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993.
10.
go back to reference Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–72.CrossRef Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–72.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:1529–41.CrossRef Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4:1529–41.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;18(2):MR000011. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;18(2):MR000011.
15.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279:281–6.CrossRef Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279:281–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–5.CrossRef Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–5.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Scherer RW, Sieving PC, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials? PLoS One. 2012;7:e44183.CrossRef Scherer RW, Sieving PC, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials? PLoS One. 2012;7:e44183.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Taylor J, Dickersin K. ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:79.CrossRef Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Taylor J, Dickersin K. ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:79.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Using ClinicalTrials.gov to supplement information in ophthalmology conference abstracts about trial outcomes: a comparison study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0130619.CrossRef Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Using ClinicalTrials.gov to supplement information in ophthalmology conference abstracts about trial outcomes: a comparison study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0130619.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Bertizzolo L, Canner JK, Cowley T, Doshi P, Ehmsen J, Gresham G, Guo N, et al. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:95–110.CrossRef Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Bertizzolo L, Canner JK, Cowley T, Doshi P, Ehmsen J, Gresham G, Guo N, et al. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:95–110.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference van Driel ML, De Sutter A, De Maeseneer J, Christiaens T. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:838–844.e833.CrossRef van Driel ML, De Sutter A, De Maeseneer J, Christiaens T. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:838–844.e833.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L. Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:681–4.CrossRef Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L. Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:681–4.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:64.CrossRef Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:64.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hopewell S. Assessing the impact of abstracts from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand in Cochrane reviews. Respirology. 2003;8:509–12.CrossRef Hopewell S. Assessing the impact of abstracts from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand in Cochrane reviews. Respirology. 2003;8:509–12.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference 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;19:673–80.CrossRef 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;19:673–80.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Tam VC, Hotte SJ. Consistency of phase III clinical trial abstracts presented at an annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology compared with their subsequent full-text publications. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2205–11.CrossRef Tam VC, Hotte SJ. Consistency of phase III clinical trial abstracts presented at an annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology compared with their subsequent full-text publications. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2205–11.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, Adams D, Vandermeer B, Armstrong PW. Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295:1281–7.CrossRef Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, Adams D, Vandermeer B, Armstrong PW. Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295:1281–7.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Saldanha IJ, Scherer RW, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Jampel HD, Dickersin K. Dependability of results in conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology and author financial conflicts of interest as a factor associated with full publication. Trials. 2016;17:213.CrossRef Saldanha IJ, Scherer RW, Rodriguez-Barraquer I, Jampel HD, Dickersin K. Dependability of results in conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology and author financial conflicts of interest as a factor associated with full publication. Trials. 2016;17:213.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Weintraub WH. Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisal. J Pediatr Surg. 1987;22:11–3.CrossRef Weintraub WH. Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisal. J Pediatr Surg. 1987;22:11–3.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356:1228–31.CrossRef McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356:1228–31.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39–50.CrossRef Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39–50.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Schmucker CM, Blumle A, Schell LK, Schwarzer G, Oeller P, Cabrera L, von Elm E, Briel M, Meerpohl JJ. Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0176210.CrossRef Schmucker CM, Blumle A, Schell LK, Schwarzer G, Oeller P, Cabrera L, von Elm E, Briel M, Meerpohl JJ. Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0176210.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference 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;68:803–10.CrossRef 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;68:803–10.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Benzies KM, Premji S, Hayden KA, Serrett K. State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2006;3:55–61.CrossRef Benzies KM, Premji S, Hayden KA, Serrett K. State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2006;3:55–61.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Weizman AV, Griesman J, Bell CM. The use of research abstracts in formulary decision making by the Joint Oncology Drug Review of Canada. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8:387–91.CrossRef Weizman AV, Griesman J, Bell CM. The use of research abstracts in formulary decision making by the Joint Oncology Drug Review of Canada. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8:387–91.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Dundar Y, Dodd S, Williamson P, Dickson R, Walley T. Case study of the comparison of data from conference abstracts and full-text articles in health technology assessment of rapidly evolving technologies: does it make a difference? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:288–94.CrossRef Dundar Y, Dodd S, Williamson P, Dickson R, Walley T. Case study of the comparison of data from conference abstracts and full-text articles in health technology assessment of rapidly evolving technologies: does it make a difference? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:288–94.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019;567:305–7.CrossRef Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019;567:305–7.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Tong C. Statistical inference enables bad science; statistical thinking enables good science. Am Stat. 2019;73:20–5.CrossRef Tong C. Statistical inference enables bad science; statistical thinking enables good science. Am Stat. 2019;73:20–5.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Ioannidis JPA. What have we (not) learnt from millions of scientific papers with P values? Am Stat. 2019;73:20–5.CrossRef Ioannidis JPA. What have we (not) learnt from millions of scientific papers with P values? Am Stat. 2019;73:20–5.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. Am Stat. 2019;73:1–19.CrossRef Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. Am Stat. 2019;73:1–19.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Saric L, Vucic K, Dragicevic K, Vrdoljak M, Jakus D, Vuka I, et al. Comparison of conference abstracts and full-text publications of randomized controlled trials presented at four consecutive World Congresses of Pain: reporting quality and agreement of results. Eur J Pain. 2019;23(1):107–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1289. Epub 2018 Jul 30.CrossRef Saric L, Vucic K, Dragicevic K, Vrdoljak M, Jakus D, Vuka I, et al. Comparison of conference abstracts and full-text publications of randomized controlled trials presented at four consecutive World Congresses of Pain: reporting quality and agreement of results. Eur J Pain. 2019;23(1):107–116. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ejp.​1289. Epub 2018 Jul 30.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches
Authors
Roberta W. Scherer
Ian J. Saldanha
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1188-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Systematic Reviews 1/2019 Go to the issue