Premium
Publication rate of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons Annual Meeting
Author(s) -
RAO AMRITH RAJ,
BEATTY JOHN D.,
LANIADO MARC,
MOTIWALA HANIF G.,
KARIM OMER M.A.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.05863.x
Subject(s) - medicine , peer review , hazard ratio , confidence interval , family medicine , library science , political science , computer science , law
OBJECTIVE To determine the number of peer‐reviewed publications arising from the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS), and to assess urological trainees’ attitudes to research in relationship to the pursuit of Specialist Registrar (SpR) training numbers and their perception of academic urology in the UK. METHODS Publications resulting from presentations at the annual meetings of the BAUS 2001 and 2002 were searched for using the PubMed database. Variables that might influence the subsequent publication of abstracts in peer‐reviewed journals were analysed. Whether institutions from other countries had similar publication rates to those in the UK was also assessed. SpRs were interviewed about their motivation to convert presentations to publications before and after their appointment to SpR training. RESULTS In July 2004, 142 of 449 abstracts presented at BAUS 2001 and 2002 were published, giving a publication rate of ≈ 42% on Kaplan‐Meier analysis. The rate of publication appeared to continue to the end of the period of searching for publications. The publication rate arising from UK presentations was lower than that from the non‐UK presentations (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.49–1.15, P = 0.14). Publication rates from podium and poster presentations were similar. Urology journals accounted for 75% of the publications. Of the SpRs evaluated, 83% did research and presented papers to obtain a training number rather than because of an inherent interest to pursue an academic career. CONCLUSIONS The conversion rate from BAUS presentation to peer‐reviewed publication at 36 months was similar on Kaplan‐Meier analysis to that of the American Urological Association (AUA, 38%). Interestingly, the rate of publication from the AUA seems to be faster than from BAUS. In addition, presentations from outside the UK appeared to be published faster than those from the UK. Delegates attending these conferences need to consider this when deciding whether a particular presentation will influence their practice. British urology requires academics who are interested in pursuing high‐quality research, and which is presented at major conferences with an intention to publish it in peer‐reviewed journals.