ORIGINAL ARTICLE Year : 2022  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 33-37  

Fate of abstracts presented at the saudi ophthalmology society conferences 2015–2018

Abdulaziz K Alsarhani1, Abdullah I Almater2, Mansour A Alobrah1, Rahaf M Al Malawi3, Waleed K Alsarhani4
1 College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Princess Nourah Bint Abdul Rahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4 Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Ophthalmology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Date of Submission10-Mar-2022Date of Acceptance28-Sep-2022Date of Web Publication23-Nov-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Waleed K Alsarhani
Department of Ophthalmology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Riyadh

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Check

DOI: 10.4103/meajo.meajo_67_22

   Abstract 

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual Saudi Ophthalmology Society (SOS) Conferences from 2015 to 2018.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study on abstracts collected from the scientific programs for the SOS meetings from 2015 to 2018. Titles and first authors' names were used in the search process on PubMed. A Chi-square test was conducted to compare between the categorical variables. Kruskal–Wallis test was used for nonnormally distributed variables.
RESULTS: A total of 365 abstracts were presented in the SOS Conferences from 2015 to 2018. In the SOS meetings (2015–2018), the publication rate was 45.7%. Seventy-two (43.1%) of the published abstracts were published in journals with an impact factor. The mean impact factor was 1.4 ± 1.9. The median time to publication was 12.0 months (range: 0–60 months). On univariate analysis, basic science (P < 0.001), abstracts on rare diseases (P = 0.003), affiliation with eye hospitals (P < 0.001), and public hospitals (0.007) were associated with a higher publication rate. On multivariate analysis, basic science studies (odds ratio [OR]: 4.23, confidence interval [CI]: 1.77–10.12, P = 0.001), rare topic-related abstracts (OR: 2.03, CI: 1.22–3.38, P = 0.007), and eye center affiliation (OR: 1.67, CI: 1.03–2.68, P = 0.036) were associated with a better publication rate. The factors associated with publication in high impact factor journals were oral abstracts (P = 0.007) and noncase report abstracts (P = 0.023).
CONCLUSION: Basic science studies, rare topic-related abstracts, and first author affiliation with an eye center were all associated with a higher publication rate. Orally presented and noncase report abstracts increased the chance of publication in higher impact factor journals.

Keywords: Ophthalmology abstracts, ophthalmology meetings, research productivity, Saudi ophthalmology

How to cite this article:
Alsarhani AK, Almater AI, Alobrah MA, Al Malawi RM, Alsarhani WK. Fate of abstracts presented at the saudi ophthalmology society conferences 2015–2018. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2022;29:33-7
How to cite this URL:
Alsarhani AK, Almater AI, Alobrah MA, Al Malawi RM, Alsarhani WK. Fate of abstracts presented at the saudi ophthalmology society conferences 2015–2018. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Nov 24];29:33-7. Available from: http://www.meajo.org/text.asp?2022/29/1/33/361881    Introduction 

Scientific meetings create vital opportunities to present the latest findings and results of medical research. Researchers mount their abstracts in front of many experts and health scientists, where constructive criticism can help make the necessary changes for publications. However, a relatively small number of meeting abstracts get published. The publication rate varies between different specialties and meetings. The conversion rate to the publication of conference abstracts has been reported to be 44.5% in a recent systemic review study that involved abstracts presented at biomedical meetings.[1] Publication failure results in data loss, waste of resources, and exposing study participants to unnecessary investigations and treatment methods. There are different reasons for failure to publish projects: Poor research quality, lack of novelty, lack of positive findings, and not to mention the long and rigorous review processes that journals adapt. Since abstracts presented to conferences do not undergo that extensive review processes, the publication rate may not be high.

Meetings and conferences may guide future studies and affect current clinical practice. Hence, assessing the quality of abstracts presented at different meetings is essential. This can be established by determining the rate of abstract conversion to publication. Other factors that may determine the quality of abstracts include publication time and the journal impact factor.[2],[3]

The primary aim of the study was to determine the publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual Saudi Ophthalmology Society (SOS) Conference in 2015–2018. We also aimed to study the factors associated with increasing the publication rate of abstracts submitted to the SOS conferences.

   Methods 

Abstracts from the SOS meetings from 2015 to 2018 were evaluated from the meetings' abstract programs. Data were collected by two independent reviewers. The following abstract features were collected; title, subspecialty, study type (basic science vs. nonbasic science), study design (case report vs. others), presentation type (oral vs. poster), the affiliation of the first author (private vs. public) (eye center vs. general hospital). A rare disease was defined based on the Rare Disease of Act 2002 and the definition of the Ministry of Health in Saudi Arabia.[4]

Abstracts were evaluated for publication from April 1 to July 31, 2021. Studies published in journals not indexed in PubMed or in predatory journals were considered unpublished projects. We followed the criteria published by Bakri and Shah in identifying predatory journals.[5] (Title)/(Abstract keywords) AND (first authors' names) were used in the search process on PubMed. An abstract was considered published if the title, part of the title, and list of authors matched the publication. The 2020 impact factor was obtained for published abstracts from Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports.[6]

Data were entered into a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and were further analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 28.0 (IBM Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). Categorical data were represented in frequencies and percentages. A Chi-square test was conducted to compare between categorical variables. Kolmogorov–Smirnov was run to test for normality. Kruskal–Wallis test was used for nonnormally distributed variables. A level of statistical significance was set at 0.05.

   Results 

A total of 365 abstracts were presented in the SOS Conferences from 2015 to 2018, with a publication rate of 45.7% (167/365). Retina represented the largest topic of the abstracts presented at the meetings (25.8%), followed by oculoplastic (15.6%), glaucoma (13.7%) and cornea (11.8%). Nonbasic science abstracts constituted most of the accepted abstracts (90.9%), and 63 case reports (17.3%) were presented in the SOS meetings. The majority of the first authors (60.1%) were affiliated with eye centers. Most of the first authors were affiliated with King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital (KKESH) (34.5%) and King Saud University (KSU) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (25.8%).

The number of abstracts published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed was 167. The publication rate was 53.4%, 49.4% 37.1%, and 45.8% in the SOS meetings in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of publication between the four different SOS meetings (P = 0.168). The most common journals were the Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology (24.0%), the Middle Eastern African Journal of Ophthalmology (11.4%), and Investigative Ophthalmology of Visual Science (8.4%). Seventy-two (43.1%) of the published abstracts were published in journals with an impact factor. The mean impact factor was 1.4 ± 1.9. The median time to publication was 12.0 months (range: 0–60 months). [Table 1] demonstrates the factors associated with successful publication. On univariate analysis, basic science (P < 0.001), abstracts on rare diseases (P = 0.003), affiliation with eye hospitals (P < 0.001), and public hospitals (0.007) were associated with a higher publication [Table 2]. On multivariate analysis, basic science studies (odds ratio [OR]: 4.23, confidence interval [CI]: 1.77–10.12, P = 0.001), rare topic-related abstracts (OR: 2.03, CI: 1.22–3.38, P = 0.007), and eye center affiliation (OR: 1.67, CI: 1.03–2.68, P = 0.036) were associated with a higher publication rate [Table 3].

Table 1: Baseline features of abstracts presented at the Saudi Ophthalmology Society meetings

Click here to view

Table 2: Univariate analysis of abstract characteristics associated with publication

Click here to view

Table 3: Binary logistic regression analysis of abstract characteristics associated with publication

Click here to view

Retina (55.3%), glaucoma (54%), and oculoplastics (50.9%) were the topics with the highest publication rate [Table 4]. The highest number of abstracts published was affiliated with first authors from KKESH (51.6%) and KSU (59.6%) [Table 4]. Factors associated with publication in high impact factor journals were oral abstracts (P = 0.007) and noncase report abstracts (P = 0.023) [Table 5].

Table 4: Publication rate based on subspecialty and affiliation of the first of the author

Click here to view

Table 5: Univariate (nonparametric) analysis of the association between abstract characteristics and the impact factor

Click here to view

   Discussion 

This study determined the publication rate of abstracts presented at the SOS meetings in 2015–2018 to be 45.7%. This rate is comparable to the publication rate reported by the Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) annual meetings in 2010–2015 (42.9%, 45.7%).[7],[8] The rate was also similar to the 5-year publication rate (47.2%) but higher than the 2-year publication rate (33.3%) of international ophthalmology meetings in 2010 reported by Villani et al. (47.2%).[9] The latter study was conducted on a random 20% of abstracts presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), the European Association for Vision and Eye Research, the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology, and the 2009 European Society of Ophthalmology meetings.[9] The current rate was higher than that of the AAO meetings in 2008 (39.1%) and 2012–2013 (32.7%).[10],[11] However, it is notably lower than the publication rates at the ARVO meeting in 1985 (63%).[12] The reason why ARVO meetings' abstracts have a higher rate of publication compared to other conferences is the fact that they focus on basic science-related research. As shown by the present study and other studies, basic science abstracts are associated with a higher chance of publication.[10],[13] The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus annual meetings in 2013–2017 publication were higher (53%) than our rate.[14] Overall, the previously reported publication rates of abstracts presented at international ophthalmology meetings ranged between 33.3% and 66%.[1],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[14] As expected, the publication rate increases when longer time is provided for publication with rates of 53.4%, 49.4%, and 37.1% in the SOS meetings in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. Nevertheless, the publication rate in SOS meeting in 2018 was higher than 2017, with a rate of 45.8%. Different reasons may explain why not all abstracts are successfully published. This includes the lack of time and resources, lack of interest, ongoing data collection and manuscript preparation, and conflicts between co-authors that may hinder the progress of the research.[15],[16],[17]

In the present study, retina (25.8%), followed by oculoplastics (15.6%), glaucoma (13.7%) and cornea (11.8%), constituted the largest percentages of abstracts presented at the SOS meetings. In the AAO meetings, retina represented the topic with the highest percentage of accepted meeting abstracts (33.3%) followed by cornea (21.9%), cataract (14.9%), and glaucoma (14.4%).[11] Publication rate was found to be variable between different subspecialties. In the current study, the specialties with the highest publication rate following abstract presentation were retina (55.3%), glaucoma (54%), and oculoplastics (50.9%). Nonetheless, there was no statistically significant difference based on subspecialty. While retina had the highest publication rate in our study, other studies showed that cornea,[7] vision rehabilitation,[8] intraocular inflammation and uveitis,[10] and glaucoma[11] had the highest publication rates.

In the literature, factors associated with an increased rate of conversion to publication included presentation type, basic science studies, study design such as randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, larger sample size, and author's academic affiliation and geographic location.[1],[9],[10],[12],[13],[18],[19] Our study showed that basic science studies (80.6% vs. 41.9%), abstracts on rare diseases (59.1% vs. 41.2%), affiliation with eye centers (54.3% vs. 32.4%), and public hospitals (49.2% vs. 20.8%) were associated with a higher rate of conversion to publication on univariate analysis. Basic science research projects may receive more funding support and have greater journal options which may contribute to a higher publication rate. Public hospitals in Saudi Arabia are academically oriented and offer more logistic and financial support for research in contrast to private centers which may explain why governmental hospital-related abstracts had a greater rate of publication conversion. In a study on abstracts presented at the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) meeting in 2017, author's affiliation with an academic medical center had the strongest association (OR: 3.83) with publication.[20] A high number of abstracts were presented by authors affiliated with eye centers. Particularly, KSU and KKESH had the highest number of abstracts presented at the SOS meetings, with a publication rate of 59.6% and 51.6%, respectively. This can be justified by the presence of well-established residency training programs and research departments and committees in both institutions. A previous study revealed that a first author affiliation with a residency training program demonstrated higher odds for publication.[11] Previous studies showed that oral presentations had a significantly higher publication rate than poster presentations.[7],[10],[12],[21] In a study on the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society Annual Meetings, platform presentations had a higher publication rate compared to poster presentations (67.1% vs. 27.2%).[13] In contrast, the present study revealed a comparable rate between oral and poster abstracts (46.3% vs. 44.9%). There was also no significant difference found in publication likelihood, based on study design (case reports vs. others). However, published case reports may have contributed to a lower mean impact factor (1.4) when compared to other studies.[8],[11],[20]

In other fields of medicine, the mean impact factor was used as a useful metric tool to compare the quality of published papers.[22],[23],[24] The average impact factor in this study was 1.4 ± 1.9. This is lower than the mean impact factor of published abstracts presented at COS meetings in 2010–2015 (2.39 ± 2.3).[8] The median impact factor of published abstracts presented at the ASCRS 2017 meeting was 2.7,[20] whereas the median of abstracts presented at AAO 2008 meeting was 2.9.[10] The weighted impact factor of abstracts presented at the NANOS meetings in 2008–2017 was 2.57.[13] Orally presented abstracts were not associated with a statistically significant rate of conversion to publication, albeit were more likely to be published in a journal higher impact factor. This may be explained by the fact that higher-quality projects tend to be accepted as oral abstracts. However, a previous study that showed no difference in the average impact factor for published oral versus poster presentations.[7] The other factor associated with publication in a higher impact factor journal was noncase report abstracts. This may be due to the restrictions applied by high impact factor journals on acceptance and publication of case reports and series. None of the other factors were associated with higher rate of publication in a high impact journal.

There are several limitations to the current study. We decided to examine only abstracts presented in the SOS conferences in 2015–2018, to allow for a reasonable amount of time for publication. However, publication rates can vary from year to year, and it is still possible that some abstracts are yet to be published. Thus, these results cannot be generalized over all meetings.

In addition, the study was focused on abstracts published in journals indexed in PubMed, however this may underestimate the publication rates as other databases were not included. Moreover, some of the information was not recorded in this study such as authors' number, geographic location, and study methodology details.

   Conclusion 

The publication rate of abstracts presented at the SOS meetings from 2015 to 2018 was comparable to the rate of abstracts presented at other international ophthalmology meetings. Basic science studies, rare topic-related abstracts, first author affiliation with an eye center were all associated with a higher publication rate. Orally presented and noncase report abstracts were associated with publication in higher impact factor journals. Scientists and clinicians attending the SOS meetings should be aware that more than half of the abstracts may not get published.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 

   References 
1.Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000005.  
    2.Basu S, Pollack MM. Outcome of pediatric critical care medicine abstracts presented at North American Academic National Meetings. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017;18:795-9.  
    3.Fosbøl EL, Fosbøl PL, Harrington RA, Eapen ZJ, Peterson ED. Conversion of cardiovascular conference abstracts to publications. Circulation 2012;126:2819-25.  
    4.Health Mo. Rare Diseases. Available from: https://www.moh.gov.sa/en/HealthAwareness/EducationalContent/Diseases/Rarediseases/Pages/default.aspx. [Last accessed on 2022 Jun 23].  
    5.Bakri SJ, Shah SM. Predatory publishing in ophthalmology: A call for awareness and action. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;221:207-10.  
    6.Thomson Reuters. Journal citation reports. https://jcr.clarivate.com [Last accessed on 2022 Jun 23].  
    7.Basilious A, Benavides Vargas AM, Buys YM. Publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2010 Canadian Ophthalmological Society Annual Meeting. Can J Ophthalmol 2017;52:343-8.  
    8.Mullen SJ, Qian J, Ceyhan T, Nguyen M, Farrokhyar F, Chaudhary V. Characteristics and trends in publications of abstracts presented at the Canadian Ophthalmological Society Annual Meetings: 2010-2015. Can J Ophthalmol. 2020;55(3):221-31.  
    9.Villani E, Vujosevic S, Specchia C, Tresca Carducci F, De Cillà S, Nucci P. The fate of abstracts presented at international ophthalmology meetings: 2- and 5-year publication rates. Eur J Ophthalmol 2019;29:148-57.  
    10.Mimouni M, Krauthammer M, Abualhasan H, Badarni H, Imtanis K, Allon G, et al. Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting. J Med Libr Assoc 2018;106:57-64.  
    11.Goyal S, Kilgore DA, Nawaz SF, Rettiganti M, Gupta P. Characteristics and fate of abstracts presented at American Academy of Ophthalmology Meetings. Semin Ophthalmol 2019;34:85-92.  
    12.Juzych MS, Shin DH, Coffey J, Juzych L, Shin D. Whatever happened to abstracts from different sections of the association for research in vision and ophthalmology? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:1879-82.  
    13.Yuan PHS, MacLean LJ, Li EA, Yin S, Micieli JA. Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society Annual Meeting From 2008 to 2017. J Neuroophthalmol. 2021;Publish Ahead of Print:e692-8.  
    14.Vagge A, Roda M, Nucci P, Siccardi G, Agrusta M, Catti C, et al. Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at AAPOS Annual Meetings: From Conference Abstract to Full-Text Article. J Podiatry Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2022;59(2):87-93.  
    15.von Elm E, Costanza MC, Walder B, Tramèr MR. More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: A systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:12.  
    16.Sprague S, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P 3rd, Cook DJ, et al. Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:158-63.  
    17.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.  
    18.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;280:254-7.  
    19.Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Predictors of publication: Characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Med J Aust 2006;184:621-6.  
    20.Lin JC, Tran MM, Greenberg PB. Journal publication of ASCRS meeting abstracts. J Cataract Refract Surg 2021;47:1240-1.  
    21.Patel AJ, Cherian J, Fox BD, Whitehead WE, Curry DJ, Luerssen TG, et al. Publication patterns of oral and poster presentations at the annual meetings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. J Neurosurg 2011;115:1258-61.  
    22.Javidan AP, Naji F, Ali KP, Rapanos T, Harlock J. Factors relating to the publication rate of abstracts presented from 2012 to 2015 at the Society for Vascular Surgery Annual Meeting. J Vasc Surg 2019;69:1909-17.  
    23.Ramos MB, Falavigna A, Abduljabbar F, Rabau O, Ferland CE, Weber MH, et al. Assessing publication rate of abstracts presented in spine conferences as a quality benchmark: The example of the Canadian Spine Society Annual Meetings. World Neurosurg 2019;131:e339-45.  
    24.Bovonratwet P, Webb ML, Ondeck NT, Shultz BN, McLynn RP, Cui JJ, et al. High publication rate of abstracts presented at Lumbar Spine Research Society Meetings. Int J Spine Surg 2018;12:713-7.  
    

 
 

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]