Programme no. 552-P
Full journal publication of abstracts presented at the Nordic Congress of General Practice in 2009 and 2011
Frans Boch Waldorff*1, Siri Vinther2, Volkert Siersma3, Kristine Petersen4, John Sahl Andersen5
1Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark,The Research Unit for General Practice,Odense,Denmark;Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen ,The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice,Copenhagen,Denmark, 2Department of Clinical Pharmacology,Bispebjerg Hospital,Copenhagen,Denmark, 3Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen ,The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice,Copenhagen,Denmark, 4Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen ,The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice,Copenhagen,Denmark, 5Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen ,The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice,Copenhagen,Denmark
* = Presenting author
Objectives: To describe and analyse the overall full journal publication rates for abstracts presented at two consecutive Nordic General Practice congresses.
Research in general practice is important in order to improve overall health care and is often initially presented at scientific general practice
conferences. The Nordic Federation of General Practice arrange Nordic conferences every second year. However, the conference abstracts are not indexed in international search databases and the works could not be considered final until published in full detail in a peer reviewed journal. Optimally, the vast majority of abstracts selected for presentation at conferences should be published and made accessible within a short period after the initial conference presentation in order for results to influence subsequent research and be implemented into clinical practice
We have not identified any surveys that address publication rates for abstracts presented at general practice congresses.
Results: A total of 338 abstracts were identified. We excluded 105 abstract that represented symposiums and workshops, leaving 233 abstracts eligible for analysis of which 100 abstracts (43%) were identified with a full journal publication within the follow-up period.
All scientific abstracts accepted for poster or oral presentation at the 16th
Nordic congress of General Practices in 2009 and 2011 and published in the official programme were included in the analysis in order to allow at least 36 months of follow up.
In order to assess publication rate, we searched Medline on the PubMed server and Embase on the Ovid server from January 1st, 2009 through December 1st, 2014.
When we confirmed a full publication, we recorded the journal’s title, date of electronic publication, and the journal’s impact factor in the publication year. All abstracts published as full paper in peer reviewed journals in the months before the corresponding congress, or during the same month that the congress took place, were considered to have been published before the congress.
Conclusion: Fewer than half of abstracts accepted for the two consecutive Nordic congresses of General Practice were identified with a full journal publication within 36 months of follow up. This may indicate a loss in spreading research results and result in potential publication bias of research from general practice.
Points for discussion:
Why is the publication rate this low for works presented as abstracts at the Nordic congresses of General Practice?
Is it possible to improve the publication rate?