Scientists rise up against statistical significance. We conducted a similar analysis in our Cochrane methodology review [4]. Control Clin Trials. The outcome of … Article  Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The 12-item checklist gives authors a framework for condensing their systematic review into the essentials for a journal of conference … This is important to ensure that the clinical questions and scope of the project are understood adequately by the external agency group and then adequately addressed in the systematic review. Although these recommendations generally do not espouse including conference abstracts in systematic reviews, they provide excellent guidance on when including abstracts should be considered: • Reviewers should routinely consider conducting a search of conference abstracts and proceedings to identify unpublished or unidentified studies. Tam VC, Hotte SJ. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. The United States Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Effective Healthcare Program, recommends that searches for conference abstracts be considered, but Cochrane and the United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) both recommend always searching for and including conference abstracts in systematic reviews [1,2,3]. Online J Curr Clin Trials. However, publication is not a matter of random chance. The review systematically searches, identifies, selects, appraises, and synthesizes research … Google Scholar. The objectives of the Title and Abstract Screening and Evaluation in Systematic Reviews (TASER) trial were to provide preliminary data on the accuracy of medical student title and abstract … 2015;10:e0130619. Balshem H, Stevens A, Ansari M, Norris S, Kansagara D, Shamliyan Try, et al. Importance: Sensory integration modalities, such as weighted blankets, are used in occupational therapy practice to assist with emotional and physical regulation. 2019;23(1):107–116. Abstract: A Systematic Review of Career Counseling Interventions for Survivors of IPV (Society for Social Work and Research 22nd Annual Conference - Achieving Equal Opportunity, Equity, and Justice) … Factors influencing publication of research results. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. van Driel ML, De Sutter A, De Maeseneer J, Christiaens T. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. CINAHL Plus with Full Text CINAHL Plus with Full Text is an online source for full text nursing and allied health journals, providing … In what circumstances? Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. Submit Encore Presentation abstracts as either Original Research, Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis, Case Reports, Advances in International Clinical Pharmacy Practice, Education, or Training, or Clinical Pharmacy Forum and select "encore" when prompted, providing the original citation, and a copy of the original abstract. IJS developed Fig. However, studies comparing conference abstracts and fully published articles of the same study find only minor differences, usually with conference abstracts presenting preliminary results. Our objectives in this commentary are to summarize the existing evidence both for and against the inclusion of conference abstracts in systematic reviews and provide suggestions for systematic reviewers when deciding whether and how to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews. 1987;8:343–53. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research. The most common reason provided by authors of abstracts for not publishing their study results in full has been reported to simply be “lack of time,” and not because the results were considered unreliable or negative [34]. Including grey literature in your systematic … We and others argue that the failure of trialists to honor their commitment to patients (that patient participation would contribute to science) represents an ethical problem [5, 6]. Trials. From a systematic reviewer’s perspective, even if the unpublished abstracts were a random 3 in 10 abstracts, restricting a systematic review search to only the published literature would amount to the loss of an immense amount of information and a corresponding loss of precision in meta-analytic estimates of treatment effect. Scherer RW, Sieving PC, Ervin AM, Dickersin K. Can we depend on investigators to identify and register randomized controlled trials? The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist may help authors provide abstracts that facilitate peer review for pre-publication and conference selection, enable efficient perusal of electronic search results, provide assessment of the validity of a systematic review … When an external agency (eg, AHRQ) is engaged to develop the systematic review for an AAP guideline, the AAP will nominate the appropriate content experts and a key methodologist to serve on the AHRQ technical expert panel as well as to serve as key informants for AHRQ. Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Taylor J, Dickersin K. registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study. Compared with abstracts included in publications, conference abstracts more often identified themselves in the title as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both (87% vs. 75%; P = 0.015) … Data sharing: Raw data collected during this study are available on Open Science Framework; link: A simple yes or no to the question “Should we include conference abstracts in our systematic review?” is neither sufficient nor appropriate. PLoS One. You now have a set of articles with the data abstracted, your data analysis and you are ready to write the narrative portion of your systematic review. 2012;7:e44183. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of all studies involving US evaluation of IT or NIT (mechanical or metabolic) affecting the Achilles enthesis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews … Ongoing and recently completed studies are often identified through searches of registries, such as, and of conference proceedings. Tong C. Statistical inference enables bad science; statistical thinking enables good science. As you read each abstract, appreciate the intellectual talent and clinical scholarship of … Disagreements were resolved by consensus. PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist gives authors a framework for condensing their systematic review into the essentials for an abstract … The reporting quality of abstracts was evaluated against the PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. We examined 425 biomedical research reports that followed the publication status of 307,028 studies presented as conference abstracts addressing a wide range of medical, allied health, and health policy fields. Accessed 26 Marc 2019. In addition, to examine the impact of including the abstracts, a sensitivity analysis should always be completed with and without conference abstracts. PLoS One. The committee generated a list of items from PRISMA and other sources of guidance and information … Through “meta-epidemiologic” studies, investigators have examined the results of meta-analyses with and without conference abstracts and have reported conflicting, but generally small differences in results [21, 24, 33]. 2013. PLoS One. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Bertizzolo L, Canner JK, Cowley T, Doshi P, Ehmsen J, Gresham G, Guo N, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1991;337:867–72. 1987;22:11–3. • Consult the TEP [Technical Expert Panel] for suggestions on particular conferences to search and search those conferences specifically. Springer Nature. Furthermore, abstracts with statistically significant results were published in full sooner than abstracts with non-significant results [14,15,16], unearthing another aspect of bias that can arise when a systematic review is performed relatively soon after the completion of a trial(s) testing a new intervention. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Based on the available evidence and on our experience, we suggest that instead of arbitrarily deciding to include conference abstracts or not in a systematic review, systematic reviewers should consider the availability of evidence. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. Conference Abstracts; Topics; ... A systematic review of the literature was conducted to understand the salutary benefits of yoga for clients who are at risk for falls because of … Benzie and colleagues evaluated the usefulness of including conference abstracts in a “state-of-the-evidence” review and concluded that including conference abstracts validated the results of a search that included only the published literature [35]. Conference calls are recommended prior to t… FASEB J. Google Scholar. The most frequent scenario for publication bias is when studies with “positive” (or “significant”) results are selectively published, or are published sooner, than studies with either null or negative results. Conference Abstract:: A Systematic Review of the Literature Analysis of APRN Roles Including Effectiveness of Clinical Nurse Specialist Role Thus, at best, approximately 3 in 10 abstracts describing RCTs have never been published in full, implying that the voluntary participation and risk-taking by multitudes of patients have not led to fully realized contributions to science. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Am Stat. Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? PLoS One. Current guidelines are conflicting. Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. J Clin Epidemiol. The median adherence by abstracts to each PRISMA-A checklist item was 33% (interquartile range: 29% to 42%)., DOI: A view from the trenches. 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. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. Ioannidis JP. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. It includes conference abstracts and papers, clinical trials, governmental or private sector research, hard to find studies, reports, and dissertations. 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? Title: pmed.1001419 1..8 Created Date: 3/21/2013 2:25:53 PM The systematic review process consists of several steps: after a systematic … 2013;13:79. Ethics: This investigation analyzed only published conference abstracts and journal manuscripts, and therefore approval of the protocol by research ethics committee was not necessary. 2009;(1):MR000006. 2017;12:e0176210. Benzies KM, Premji S, Hayden KA, Serrett K. State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature. EMBASE content: List of conferences covered in Embase. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US): 2008-AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. "Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of pain and a leading cause of disability. One aspect to consider is the scope of the review. Second, largely driven by their brevity, abstracts may not contain adequate information for systematic reviewers to appraise the design, methods, risk of bias, outcomes, and results of studies reported in the abstracts [18,19,20,21]. Those conducting systematic reviews have long grappled with this problem, known as “publication bias.” Publication bias occurs when either the likelihood of, or the time to, publication of a study is impacted by the direction of the study’s results [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. BMJ. RWS conceived the idea for the commentary. Scherer, R.W., Saldanha, I.J. In other words, if only a single study in full-length form is identified, or if the studies identified are few and small, then conference abstracts should probably be searched and included. statement and Under given circumstances, it is worthwhile to search for and include results from conference abstracts in systematic reviews. 2015;68:803–10. However, in some cases, including conference abstracts has made a difference in the estimate of the treatment effect, not just its precision. Lancet. 2017;86:39–50. Correspondence to By using this website, you agree to our Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. 2003;3:12. Writing a Systematic Review. Magnitudes of effect sizes and thresholds for what is considered relevant can vary considerably across outcomes and across fields and disciplines. 1). Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. However, EMBASE, a commonly searched database during systematic reviews, now includes conference abstracts from important medical conferences, dating back to 2009 [17]. Mayo-Wilson and colleagues examined the agreement in reported data across a range of unpublished sources related to the same studies in bipolar depression and neuropathic pain [21, 32]. We were able to do this because some of our included reports that examined full publication of conference abstracts were themselves only available as conference abstracts. 2005;19:673–80. The guidance for abstracts … 2017;91:95–110. 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. An objective appraisal. Study selection: Full-text reviews were performed to determine final eligibility … 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. Resources for conducting a systematic review research. 2016;17:213. 2010;8:387–91. We identified 143 conference abstracts describing SRs. Conference papers may be included in Systematic Reviews of Literature. • We do not recommend using conference abstracts for assessing selective outcome reporting and selective analysis reporting, given the variable evidence of concordance between conference abstracts and their subsequent full-text publications [1]. The conference abstracts are published to share new knowledge with those unable to attend the conference. Third, the dependability of results presented in abstracts also is questionable [22,23,24], which occurs at least in part because (1) most abstracts are not peer-reviewed and (2) results reported in abstracts are often preliminary and/or based on limited analyses conducted in a rush to meet conference deadlines. A systematic review is a highly rigorous review of existing literature that addresses a clearly formulated question. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Taken together, the evidence reviewed in this paper (summarized in Table 1) suggests that systematic reviewers should take a more nuanced approach to inclusion of conference abstracts. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Of these, 90 (63%) were published as full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals by April 2018, with a median time from conference presentation to publication of 5 months (interquartile range: −0.25 to 14 months). While meta-epidemiologic studies have shown that inclusion of abstracts does not greatly impact meta-analytic results, it can sometimes make a difference. Publication bias can be conceptualized as occurring in two stages: (I) from a study’s end to presentation of its results at a conference (and publication of an accompanying conference abstract) and (II) from publication of a conference abstract to subsequent “full publication” of the study results, typically in a peer-reviewed journal article [13]. Various studies have questioned whether the inclusion of “gray” literature or unpublished study results in a systematic review would change the estimates of treatment effect obtained during meta-analyses. 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 … A supplementary search of the gray literature was performed, including conference abstracts and clinical trial registries. However, a reasonable argument could be made that, when the same information is available in both a published peer-reviewed article and an abstract for a given study, including the abstract in a systematic review would be superfluous and/or ill-advised because a likely more comprehensive and dependable source of the information, i.e., the peer-reviewed article, is available. The objective was to determine differences in the prevalence as well as in the outcomes in diabetic vs. non-diabetic PAD patients. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. If available evidence is sparse or conflicting, it may be worthwhile to include conference abstracts. Among 79 abstract–publication pairs evaluable for discordance, there was some form of discordance in 40% of pairs. We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. 2006;59:681–4. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Am Stat. 2009;62:838–844.e833. Lancet. If available evidence is sparse or conflicting, it may be worthwhile to search for conference abstracts. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. BMC Med Res Methodol. The PRISMA extension for Abstracts was published in 2013.