HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rosmarakis, E. S. Articles by Falagas, M. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rosmarakis, E. S. Articles by Falagas, M. E. Related Collections Related Articles

From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals

Evangelos S. Rosmarakis^*, Elpidoforos S. Soteriades^*,, Paschalis I. Vergidis^*, Sofia K. Kasiakou^* and Matthew E. Falagas^*,,1

^* Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), Athens, Greece;
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; and
Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

¹ Correspondence: Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences (AIBS), 9 Neapoleos St., Marousi 151 23, Greece. E-mail: matthew.falagas{at}tufts.edu

Background: We studied the type and frequency of differences between data presented in conference abstracts and subsequent published papers in the fields of infectious diseases and microbiology. Methods: We reviewed all abstracts from the first session of 7 of 15 major research categories presented in the 1999 and 2000 Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. For each selected pair of abstract and related published paper, two independent investigators performed a detailed data comparison. Results: From 190 abstracts reviewed, 68 (36%) were subsequently published as full papers by March 2004. Fifty-two pairs referred to the same study population and period. Differences were found in 30 of 51 pairs, which were further analyzed (point estimate=59%, 95% C.I.: 45–73%). The identified differences were related to both the aims and conclusions of the study (3/30), the study conclusions only (2/30), numbers and/or rates of the studied patients (10/30), numbers or rates of microbiological isolates (9/30), MIC values or K_i values (5/30), other pharmacological properties of antibiotics (2/30), odds ratio (1/30), and duration of observation (1/30). Some differences were considered major. In bivariable associations, time to publication (from presentation in the conference to publication of the full paper) was associated with identifiable differences between the conference abstract and the full paper (OR=1.76, 95% CI 0.95–3.24/year of delay, P=0.07). Conclusions: It is reassuring that although we identified several reportable differences, only a very small proportion of studies exhibited differences in their aims and/or conclusions. Researchers may benefit from the above findings in improving the accuracy of presented data.—Rosmarakis, E. S., Soteriades, E. S., Vergidis, P. I., Kasiakou, S. K., Falagas, M. E. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals.

Key Words: abstract • conference • paper • article • impact factor

Related Articles

Renaming the DSCR1/Adapt78 gene family as RCAN: regulators of calcineurin

Kelvin J. A. Davies, Gennady Ermak, Beverley A. Rothermel, Melanie Pritchard, Joseph Heitman, Joohong Ahnn, Flavio Henrique-Silva, Dana Crawford, Silvia Canaider, Pierluigi Strippoli, Paolo Carinci, Kyung-Tai Min, Deborah S. Fox, Kyle W. Cunningham, Rhonda Bassel-Duby, Eric N. Olson, Zhuohua Zhang, R. Sanders Williams, Hans-Peter Gerber, Mercè Pérez-Riba, Hisao Seo, Xia Cao, Claude B. Klee, Juan Miguel Redondo, Lois J. Maltais, Elspeth A. Bruford, Sue Povey, Jeffery D. Molkentin, Frank D. McKeon, Elia J. Duh, Gerald R. Crabtree, Martha S. Cyert, Susana de la Luna, and Xavier Estivill
FASEB J 2007 21: 3023-3028. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Hopewell, A. Eisinga, and M. Clarke Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts Journal of Information Science, April 1, 2008; 34(2): 162 - 173. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. E. Falagas and E. S. Rosmarakis Clinical decision-making based on findings presented in conference abstracts: is it safe for our patients? Eur. Heart J., September 1, 2006; 27(17): 2038 - 2039. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]