Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 59, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 681-684

  Hopewell, Sally ^a   Clarke, Mike ^a   Askie, Lisa ^b  

^a UK COCHRANE CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Poor reporting; Publication bias; Systematic reviews; Trial quality

Indexed keywords

DATA ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDLINE; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING; CONGRESSES; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33744783957     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.016     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Scherer R.W., and Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Methodology Review). The Cochrane library. Issue 1 (2005), Update Software, Oxford
2. Dickersin K., Min Y.I., and Meinert C.L. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 263 3 (1992) 274-278
3. Hopewell S., and Clarke M. Abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference: how completely are trials reported?. Clin Trials 2 (2005) 265-268
4. Cook D.J., Guyatt G.H., Ryan G., Clifton J., Buckingham L., Willan A., McIlroy W., and Oxman A.D. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA 269 21 (1993) 2749-2753
5. Moher D., Schultz K.F., Altman D.G., and for the CONSORT group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 134 (2001) 657-661
6. Deeks J.J., and Altman D.G. Inadequate reporting of controlled trials as short reports. Lancet 352 (1998) 1908
7. Hayes R.B., Mulrow C.D., Huth E.J., Altman D.G., and Gardner M.J. More informative abstracts revisited. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 33 (1996) 1-9
8. Ciesla M.C., and Wojcik D. Outcomes of cytopathology studies presented at national pathology meetings. Diagn Cytopathol 25 4 (2001) 265-269
9. Roy D., Sankar J.P., Hughes A., Jones A., and Fenton J.E. Publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolaryngological Research Society meetings. Clin Otolaryngol 26 3 (2001) 253-256
10. Sprague S., Bhandari M., Devereaux P.J., Swiontkowski F., Tornetta P., Cook D.J., Dirschil D., Schemitsch E.H., and Guyatt G.H. Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. Bone Joint Surg 85 1 (2003) 158-163
11. Weintraub W.H. Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisal. Pediatr Surg 22 1 (1987) 11-13
12. Chokkalingam A., Scherer R., and Dickersin K. Agreement of data in abstracts compared to full publications. Control Clin Trials 19 Suppl 1 (1998) 61S-62S
13. Davies M.W., Dunster C.E., East C.S., and Lingwood B.E. Fate of abstracts published in the proceedings of the first annual Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand Congress in 1997. J Paediatr Child Health 38 5 (2002) 501-506
14. Klassen T.P., Wiebe N., Russell K., Stevens K., Hartling L., Craig W.R., and Moher D. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the Society of Pediatric Research Meeting: an example of publication bias. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 156 5 (2002) 474-480
15. Chalmers I. Using systematic reviews and registers of ongoing trials for scientific and ethical trial design, monitoring, and reporting. In: Egger M., Davey-Smith G., and Altman D.G. (Eds). Systematic reviews in heath care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. (2001), BMJ Books, London 429-443