English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In recent years about 18,000 clinicians and scientists have attended the EASD Annual Meeting. The advantage of participating in such a conference is that original research is presented long before the results are published. However, because the review process for submitted abstracts is less stringent than that for full-length articles, some doubts remain as to the validity of the abstracts’ methodology and conclusions [1]. Therefore, it is mandatory to assess the quality of presentations selected for medical conferences. The basis of this quality assessment is the publication rate of accepted and rejected abstracts and the impact of the publications resulting from presentations. Whereas some comparable academic societies recently published evaluations of their conference abstracts [2–5], for the EASD and ADA the publication rate of abstracts as full-length papers has only been evaluated for a small sample of abstracts presented at meetings held in 1992 [6]. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of the EASD abstract review system using subsequent publication success as the outcome and to compare these results with evaluations of other conferences. There were 2,008 abstracts submitted to the 2004 EASD Annual Meeting. Following anonymous review by seven groups of specialists, each one consisting of five members, 1,306 abstracts were selected to be presented (264 oral and 1,042 poster presentations). A random sample of 493 submitted abstracts was evaluated. Each of the 2,008 abstracts was assigned a random number and the abstracts numbered 1–493 were selected. The abstracts in the random sample were representative in terms of country of origin and field of research. For all abstracts a systematic search was undertaken using MEDLINE. In addition, all first authors received an e-mail asking for information about publications. The period of time evaluated was until 21 August 2008 in order to study a time frame of 48 months. The impact factor of the journals for the year 2007 was used, because a review found that the mean time until publication in a major congress is about 1.5 years and since the meeting was in September 2004, 2007 was the closest full year evaluation [7]. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics (available from www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/). Metric values were assessed for distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Comparing two groups the Mann–Whitney U test was used; comparing more than two groups the Kruskal–Wallis test was used. Proportional differences derived from categorical data were compared using Fisher’s exact test or the χ test when appropriate and the results presented as ORs and 95% CIs. The p values were two sided and values <0.001 considered statistically significant. Of the submitted 493 abstracts selected at random, 42.4% were published. The publication rate was 51.1% for accepted abstracts and 26.7% for rejected abstracts. Of the 493 first authors contacted via e-mail, 201 (40.8%) replied. More responses were received from authors whose abstract was accepted for presentation (46.1%) compared with authors of rejected abstracts (31.3%). A MEDLINE search identified 194 studies resulting from the abstracts. Another 15 publications could only be identified using e-mails received from the authors. A total of 3.4% of the publications of the rejected abstracts occurred in journals not V. Jorgens (*) :M. Grusser EASD, Rheindorfer Weg 3, 40591 Dusseldorf, Germany e-mail: secretariat@easd.org

Fate of abstracts submitted to the 2004 EASD Annual Meeting in Munich