Searching for and use of conference abstracts in health technology assessments: Policy and practice

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 283-287

  Dundar, Yenal ^a   Dodd, Susanna ^b   Williamson, Paula ^b   Walley, Tom ^a   Dickson, Rumona ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Congresses; Data collection; Randomized controlled trials; Review literature; Technology assessment biomedical

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; DATA ACQUISITION; HEALTH CARE; PUBLIC POLICY; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS;

CONGRESSES; DATA COLLECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; REVIEW LITERATURE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BIOMEDICAL;

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; EXPERIENCE; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SURVEY; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW;

CONGRESSES; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; REVIEW LITERATURE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 33749135238     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462306051154     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, et al. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:615-621.
2. Chokkalingam A, Scherer R, Dickersin K. Concordance of data between conference abstracts and full reports. Baltimore, MD: Cochrane Colloquium; 1998.
3. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, et al. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA. 1993;269:2749-2753.
4. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev. 1997;9:15-21.
5. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-76.
6. Hopewell S. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. The Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001.
7. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L. Trials reported as abstracts and full publications: How do they compare? 12th Cochrane Colloquium, October 2-6. Program and abstract book. Ontario: Cochrane Colloquium; 2004:77.
8. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, et al. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356:1228-1231.
9. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. (reference N0515). Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/ pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf 2004.
10. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the technology appraisal process. (reference N0514). Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/ TAP.pdf. 2004.
11. Royle P, Bain L, Waugh N. Systematic reviews of epidemiology in diabetes: Finding the evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:2.
12. Royle P, Waugh N. Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-51.
13. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005.
14. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, et al. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1-115.
15. The Cochrane Library, Planning the metaanalysis: Methods of identifying trials. Appendix 11A. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2005:218.
16. Tooher R, Middleton P, Griffin T, et al. How different are conference abstracts of surgical RCTs from the subsequent full publication? Ottawa: Cochrane Collaboration Colloquia; 2004:57.
17. Weintraub WH. Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisal. J Pediatr Surg. 1987;22:11-13.