'Spin' in urology non-randomised studies comparing therapeutic interventions: a temporal analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of 'spin' (i.e., reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results by positively reflecting negative findings or downplaying potential harms) strategies and level of spin in urological observational studies and whether the use of spin has changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify observational studies comparing therapeutic interventions in the top five urology journals and major urological subspecialty journals, published between 2000 and 2001, 2010 and 2011, and 2020 and 2021. RESULTS: A total of 235 studies were included. Spin was identified in 81% of studies, with a median of two strategies per study. The most commonly used strategies were inadequate implication for clinical practice (30%), causal language or causal claim (29%), and use of linguistic spin (29%). Moderate to high levels of spin were found in 55% of conclusions. From 2000 to 2020, the average number of strategies used has significantly decreased each decade (H = 27.459, P < 0.001), and the median level of spin in conclusions was significantly lower in studies published in the 2020s and 2010s than in the 2000s (H = 11.649, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 81% of urological observational studies comparing therapeutic interventions contained spin. Over the past two decades, the use of spin has significantly declined, but this remains an area for improvement, with 70% of included studies published in the 2020s employing spin. Medical writing should scrupulously avoid words or phrases that are not supported by data in the manuscript.

Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate transparency practices in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry. METHODS: This meta-research study included RCTs in dentistry regardless of topic, methods, or level of detail reported. Only studies in English were considered. We searched PubMed for RCTs in dentistry published in English from December 31, 2016, to December 31, 2021. The screening was performed in duplicate, and data extracted included journal and author details, dental specialty, protocol registration, data and code sharing, conflict of interest declaration, and funding information. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. We generated maps illustrating the reporting of transparency items by country of the corresponding author and a heat table reflecting reporting levels by dental specialty. RESULTS: A total of 844 RCTs were included. Only 12.86% of studies reported any information about data and code sharing. Protocol registration was reported for 50.36% of RCTs. Conflict of interest (83.41%) and funding (71.68%) declarations were present in most studies. Conflicts of interest and funding were consistently reported regardless of country or specialty, while data and code sharing had a low level of reporting across specialties, as well as low dissemination across the world. Protocol registration exhibited considerable variability. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the importance of RCTs for evidence-based dentistry, it is crucial that everyone who participates in the scientific production and dissemination process actively and consistently promotes adherence to transparent scientific standards, particularly registration of protocols, and sharing of data and code.

Assessing the Impact of the American Heart Association's Research Portfolio: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

A task force composed of American Heart Association (AHA) Research Committee members established processes to measure the performance of the AHA's research portfolio and evaluated key outcomes that are fundamental to the overall success of the program. This report reviews progress that the AHA research program has had in achieving its goals relevant to the research programs in the AHA's research portfolio from 2008 to 2017. Comprehensive performance metrics were identified to assess the impact of AHA funding on researchers' career progress and research outcomes. Metrics included bibliometric analysis (ie, tracking of publications and their impact) and career development measures (ie, subsequent grant funding, intellectual property, faculty appointment/promotion, or industry position). Publication rates ranged from ≈0.5 to 4 publications per year, with a strong correlation between number of publications per year and later career stage. The Field-Weighted Citation Index, a metric of bibliometric impact, was between 1.5 and 3.0 for all programs, indicating that AHA awardee publications had a higher citation impact compared with similar publications. To gain insight into the career progression of AHA awardees, a 2-year postaward survey was distributed. Of the Postdoctoral Fellowship recipient respondents, 72% obtained academic research positions, with the remaining working in industry or government research settings; 72% of those in academic positions obtained additional funding. Among respondents who were Beginning Grant-in-Aid and Scientist Development Grant awardees, 45% received academic promotions and 83% obtained additional funding. Measuring performance of the AHA's research portfolio is critical to ensure that its strategic goals are met and to show the AHA's commitment to high-quality, impactful research.

Assessing "Spin" in Urology Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes.

PURPOSE: "Spin" refers to a form of language manipulation that positively reflects negative findings or downplays potential harms. Spin has been reported in randomized controlled trials of other surgical specialties, which can lead to the recommendation of subpar or ineffective treatments. The goal of this study was to characterize spin strategies and severity in statistically nonsignificant urology randomized controlled trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and Embase for the top 5 urology journals, major urology subspecialty journals, and high-impact nonurology journals from 2019 to 2021 was conducted. Statistically nonsignificant randomized controlled trials with a defined primary outcome were included. Screening, data extraction, and spin assessment were performed in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: From the database search of 4,339 studies, 46 trials were included for analysis. Spin was identified in 35 studies (76%), with the majority of abstracts (n = 26, 57%) and main texts (n = 35, 76%) containing some level of spin. "Obscuring the statistical nonsignificance of the primary outcome and focusing on statistically significant secondary results" was the most frequently used strategy in abstracts, while "other" strategies not previously defined were the most commonly used strategies in main texts. Moderate or high spin severity was identified in 21 (46%) abstract and 22 (48%) main text conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results suggest that 76% of statistically nonsignificant urology randomized controlled trials contained some level of spin. Readers and writers should be aware of common spin strategies when interpreting nonsignificant results and critically appraise the significance of results when making decisions for clinical practice.

The Quality of Literature Search Reporting in Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (1998-2021).

PURPOSE: We evaluate to what extent systematic reviews published in the urological literature follow best practices for the reporting of searches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews addressing questions of therapy/prevention were sought out in 5 major urological journals from January 1998 to December 2021. Two members performed study selection and data abstraction independently and in duplicate. The methodological and reporting quality of these systematic reviews was assessed using operationalized criteria based on the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-literature search extension) and PRISMA 2020 checklists. Proportions of systematic reviews that satisfied each criterion were compared based on period (1998-2012, 2013-2016, and 2017-2021) and journal of publication. RESULTS: The search identified 483 systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria. Most systematic reviews searched 2 or more electronic databases (88.6%); few searched abstract proceedings (26.7%), clinical trial registries (15.1%), or dedicated databases of the "gray literature" (6.2%). Approximately 1 in 3 systematic reviews (32.3%) were explicit in not restricting searches by language. A few criteria demonstrated improved reporting over time including use of clinical trial registries (6.8% vs 14.4% vs 23.3%; P = .001), searches unrestricted by language (37.3% vs 49.3% vs 55.1%; P = .006), and flow diagram reporting (34.8% vs 82.9% vs 93.2%; P = .001) but not the search of abstract proceedings (28.6% vs 24.0% vs 27.3%; P = .647). Reporting characteristics across journals were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews published in the urological literature have considerable shortcomings regarding the reporting of their underlying search strategies. Efforts must be taken to improve search strategies in the form of better training in systematic review methods as well as the more stringent enforcement of reporting guidelines.

Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement.

Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC. The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Checklist guides reporting of PC research to include the information needed by the diverse PC community, including practitioners, patients, and communities. CRISP complements current guidelines to enhance the reporting, dissemination, and application of PC research findings and results. Prior CRISP studies documented opportunities to improve research reporting in this field. Our surveys of the international, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional PC community identified essential items to include in PC research reports. A 2-round Delphi study identified a consensus list of items considered necessary. The CRISP Checklist contains 24 items that describe the research team, patients, study participants, health conditions, clinical encounters, care teams, interventions, study measures, settings of care, and implementation of findings/results in PC. Not every item applies to every study design or topic. The CRISP guidelines inform the design and reporting of (1) studies done by PC researchers, (2) studies done by other investigators in PC populations and settings, and (3) studies intended for application in PC practice. Improved reporting of the context of the clinical services and the process of research is critical to interpreting study findings/results and applying them to diverse populations and varied settings in PC.Annals "Online First" article.

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Complete reporting is essential for clinical research. However, the endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals is still unclear. Further, as a field extensively utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), the adoption of both general and AI reporting guidelines would be necessary for enhancing quality and transparency of radiological research. This study aims to investigate the endorsement of general reporting guidelines and those for AI applications in medical imaging in radiological journals, and explore associated journal characteristic variables. METHODS: This meta-research study screened journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category, Science Citation Index Expanded of the 2022 Journal Citation Reports, and excluded journals not publishing original research, in non-English languages, and instructions for authors unavailable. The endorsement of fifteen general reporting guidelines and ten AI reporting guidelines was rated using a five-level tool: "active strong", "active weak", "passive moderate", "passive weak", and "none". The association between endorsement and journal characteristic variables was evaluated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 117 journals. The top-five endorsed reporting guidelines were CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 58.1%, 68/117), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 54.7%, 64/117), STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, 51.3%, 60/117), STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy, 50.4%, 59/117), and ARRIVE (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 35.9%, 42/117). The most implemented AI reporting guideline was CLAIM (Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, 1.7%, 2/117), while other nine AI reporting guidelines were not mentioned. The Journal Impact Factor quartile and publisher were associated with endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals. CONCLUSIONS: The general reporting guideline endorsement was suboptimal in radiological journals. The implementation of reporting guidelines for AI applications in medical imaging was extremely low. Their adoption should be strengthened to facilitate quality and transparency of radiological study reporting.

Mapping the literature on primary care research reporting: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Despite broad efforts to improve the reporting of biomedical research, no reporting guideline exists for primary care (PC) research. Little is known about current reporting practices or how well reports meet the needs of varied users in PC. OBJECTIVE: To map the published literature on PC research reporting: quality, strengths and weaknesses, recommendations and efforts to improve reporting. METHODS: Scoping review of literature across seven major databases and search engines to identify all articles on PC research reporting published in English, 2000-20. An additional secondary search of references of these 25 articles and consideration of expert panel suggestions. Structured data extraction by multiple reviewers using a predetermined form. RESULTS: Search yielded 2847 unique titles, of which 126 underwent full-text review and 25 met inclusion criteria. Publications included opinion pieces (9), systematic reviews (5), methods articles (2), literature reviews (4), qualitative studies (4) and surveys (1). Studies focussed on a variety of topics and research methods. All publications identified the need for improved reporting and recommended items to include in reports. Most commonly, publications cited the need for more detailed reporting on the context of study interventions, clinical settings and health care systems. Most publications endorsed the use of reporting guidelines and recognized the unique needs of PC research reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Published research and opinion identify unique needs for PC research reports and support new guidance to improve the validity, generalizability and application of study findings.

Doctors and health scientists recognize the need to improve the way they report their research. Despite the key role of primary care (PC) in strong health care systems, none of the many reporting guidelines focuses on PC research. To understand what is known about reporting PC research, we systematically searched all scientific articles published in English 2000­20. We studied the 25 key articles, which dealt with a great variety of patients, populations, medical problems and research methods. These articles identified needs for improvement and suggested items to include or ways to communicate research findings more effectively to the variety of readers who must put new research into practice to improve patient care and community health. These readers­practicing clinicians, researchers, patients, teachers and policymakers­need more practical details to understand the context and setting where the research took place and the patients were treated. Readers need better reporting of context to help them judge how they can apply the new research knowledge in their own practices. This review helped identify items to include and ways to improve research reports that can help develop new guidelines for PC research reports.

Overview of Reviews Using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) as a Measure of Trial Intervention Reporting Quality.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of descriptions of interventions in health care research reports, based on a synthesis of reviews that used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to rate the completeness and quality of intervention reporting. DESIGN: Overview of published reviews. In a systematic search of the literature, 56 review articles were retrieved that had evaluated 3454 primary studies (index articles) using all or most of the 12 TIDieR items, applied to experimental treatment only or treatment and comparator both, separately. If available, percentages "reported completely" were extracted based on the index article, the index article supplemented by related information, and these 2 supplemented by e-mailing the author. Information on the review's methodology was also extracted. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of primary studies receiving "adequately reported" ratings on each of the 12 TIDieR items. RESULTS: While for treatment arms TIDieR items 1 (name of treatment) and 2 (why of treatment) are generally judged to be reported adequately, the percentage is between 25% and 75% for most other items and is as low as 10% for item 10 (modifications). Comparators are reported even more poorly. Use of additional publications on a trial increased percentages "reported adequately" marginally; e-mailing resulted in significant increases in completeness of reporting. Rehabilitation trials were reported better than nonrehabilitation trials for some TIDieR items and worse for others. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting on the interventions and comparators of trials is substandard. More extensive use of supplemental digital content and of versions of TIDieR customized for specific domains of research may improve the situation.

Reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence in healthcare research.

Reporting guidelines are structured tools developed using explicit methodology that specify the minimum information required by researchers when reporting a study. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) reporting guidelines that address potential sources of bias specific to studies involving AI interventions has the potential to improve the quality of AI studies, through improvements in their design and delivery, and the completeness and transparency of their reporting. With a number of guidance documents relating to AI studies emerging from different specialist societies, this Review article provides researchers with some key principles for selecting the most appropriate reporting guidelines for a study involving an AI intervention. As the main determinants of a high-quality study are contained within the methodology of the study design rather than the intervention, researchers are recommended to use reporting guidelines that are specific to the study design, and then supplement them with AI-specific guidance contained within available AI reporting guidelines.

Development of Primary Care Research in North America, Europe, and Australia From 1974 to 2017.

Research is a necessity for high-quality medicine. We used the MEDLINE database to conduct a bibliometric analysis of research output with respect to primary care by 21 countries. For the period 1974 to 2017, the United States and the United Kingdom stood out in terms of publication volume, and the UK, Canada, and Australia had the greatest percentage of publications in primary care. As of 2017, publications in primary care represented a small proportion of total publications. The countries with the greatest publication productivity possess factors that should be considered with respect to strengthening research in primary care.

[Scientific production from public hospitals of the City of Buenos Aires, 2017]. / Producción científica de los hospitales públicos de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, 2017.

The number of publications in the scientific literature coming from an institution is an indicator of its scientific production. The scientific production of the hospitals of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires (GCBA) has been evaluated previously, but without discriminating how much of that production corresponded to other academic institutions settled there (University of Buenos Aires, UBA, National Council of Scientific Research and Techniques, CONICET). Our objective was to evaluate the publications included in PubMed that correspond to hospitals of the GCBA, describe their main characteristics, and discriminate the contribution of other academic institutions (UBA and CONICET). It is a cross-sectional study based on a PubMed search, using the name of each of the 34 GCBA hospitals, CONICET and UBA in the "affiliation" field. In total, 2727 publications from GCBA hospitals were identified (4.6% of Argentine publications); 73.9% in English, 78.9% in relation to humans, 37.2% in the last 5 years; 6.4% with high level of evidence (clinical trials and meta-analysis), and 28.4% including children. Compared to the national total, the GCBA publications include fewer works in English, more research in humans, more clinical trials and more research in children. Of the publications corresponding to hospitals of the GCBA, 90.4% did not share the affiliation with CONICET or with UBA. In conclusion, the GCBA hospitals generated 4.6% of the total Argentine publications in PubMed; and 90% of these was not shared with UBA or CONICET. Publications from GCBA institutions include more clinical trials and research in children.

The under reporting of recruitment strategies in research with children with life-threatening illnesses: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Researchers report difficulties in conducting research with children and young people with life-limiting conditions or life-threatening illnesses and their families. Recruitment is challenged by barriers including ethical, logistical and clinical considerations. AIM: To explore how children and young people (aged 0-25 years) with life-limiting conditions or life-threatening illnesses and their families were identified, invited and consented to research published in the last 5 years. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Sciences Citation Index and SCOPUS were searched for original English language research published between 2009 and 2014, recruiting children and young people with life-limiting conditions or life-threatening illness and their families. RESULTS: A total of 215 studies - 152 qualitative, 54 quantitative and 9 mixed methods - were included. Limited recruitment information but a range of strategies and difficulties were provided. The proportion of eligible participants from those screened could not be calculated in 80% of studies. Recruitment rates could not be calculated in 77%. A total of 31% of studies recruited less than 50% of eligible participants. Reasons given for non-invitation included missing clinical or contact data, or clinician judgements of participant unsuitability. Reasons for non-participation included lack of interest and participants' perceptions of potential burdens. CONCLUSION: All stages of recruitment were under reported. Transparency in reporting of participant identification, invitation and consent is needed to enable researchers to understand research implications, bias risk and to whom results apply. Research is needed to explore why consenting participants decide to take part or not and their experiences of research recruitment.

Research engagement of health sciences librarians: a survey of research-related activities and attitudes.

INTRODUCTION: The extent to which health sciences librarians are engaged in research is a little-studied question. This study assesses the research activities and attitudes of Medical Library Association (MLA) members, including the influence of work affiliation. METHODS: An online survey was designed using a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended questions and distributed to MLA members. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, content analysis, and significance testing. The authors used statistical tools and categorized open-ended question topics by the constant comparative method, also applying the broad subject categories used in a prior study. Pearson's chi-square analysis was performed on responses to determine significant differences among respondents employed in three different institutional environments. RESULTS: Analysis showed that 79% of respondents read research articles at least once a month; 58% applied published research studies to practice; 44% had conducted research; 62% reported acting on research had enhanced their libraries; 38% had presented findings; and 34% had authored research articles. Hospital librarians were significantly less likely than academic librarians to have participated in research activities. Highly ranked research benefits, barriers, and competencies of health sciences librarians are described. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that health sciences librarians are actively engaged in research activities. Practice implications for practitioners, publishers, and stakeholders are discussed. Results suggest that practitioners can use published research results and results from their own research to affect practice decisions and improve services. Future studies are needed to confirm and extend these findings, including the need for intervention studies to increase research and writing productivity.

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyze how instructions for authors in journals indexed in MEDLINE address systematic review (SR) reporting and methodology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed instructions for authors in 20% of MEDLINE-indexed journals listed in the online catalog of the National Library of Medicine on July 27, 2021. We extracted data only from the instructions published in English. We extracted data on the existence of instructions for reporting and methodology of SRs. RESULTS: Instructions from 1,237 journals mentioned SRs in 45% (n = 560) of the cases. Systematic review (SR) registration was mentioned in 104/1,237 (8%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SR protocols were found in 155/1,237 (13%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SRs were explicitly mentioned in 461/1,237 (37%), whereas the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network was referred to in 474/1,237 (38%) of instructions. Less than 2% (n = 20) of instructions mentioned risk of bias and meta-analyses; less than 1% mentioned certainty of evidence assessment, methodological expectations, updating of SRs, overviews of SRs, or scoping reviews. CONCLUSION: Journals indexed in MEDLINE rarely provide instructions for authors regarding SR reporting and methodology. Such instructions could potentially raise authors' awareness and improve how SRs are prepared and reported.

Non-apoptotic role of EGL-1 in exopher production and neuronal health in Caenorhabditis elegans.

While traditionally studied for their pro-apoptotic functions, recent research suggests BH3-only proteins also have non-apoptotic roles. Here, we find that EGL-1, the BH3-only protein in Caenorhabditis elegans, promotes the cell-autonomous production of exophers in adult neurons. Exophers are large, micron-scale vesicles that are ejected from the cell and contain cellular components such as mitochondria. EGL-1 facilitates exopher production potentially through regulation of mitochondrial dynamics. Moreover, an endogenous, low level of EGL-1 expression appears to benefit dendritic health. Our findings provide insights into the mechanistic role of BH3-only protein in mitochondrial dynamics, downstream exopher production, and ultimately neuronal health.

Developing an international consensus Reporting guideline for intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: The ReFiND protocol.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate reporting of fidelity to interventions in trials limits the transparency and interpretation of trial findings. Despite this, most trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions lack comprehensive reporting of fidelity. If fidelity is poorly reported, it is unclear which intervention components were tested or implemented within the trial, which also hinders research reproducibility. This protocol describes the development process of a reporting guideline for fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions (ReFiND) in the context of trials. METHODS: The ReFiND guideline will be developed in six stages. Stage one: a guideline development group has been formed to oversee the guideline methodology. Stage two: a scoping review will be conducted to identify and summarize existing guidance documents on the fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. Stage three: a Delphi study will be conducted to reach consensus on reporting items. Stage four: a consensus meeting will be held to consolidate the reporting items and discuss the wording and structure of the guideline. Stage five: a guidance statement, an elaboration and explanation document, and a reporting checklist will be developed. Stage six: different strategies will be used to disseminate and implement the ReFiND guideline. DISCUSSION: The ReFiND guideline will provide a set of items developed through international consensus to improve the reporting of intervention fidelity in trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. This reporting guideline will enhance transparency and reproducibility in future non-drug, non-surgical intervention research.

Evaluation of the appropriateness of nursing case studies using the CARE checklist.

Case report is a narrative description of the problem of one or several patients. The CARE checklist (CAse REport) is the consensus document for reporting clinical case reports and through adaptations to the different CARE disciplines is used to define standards for authors in scientific journals; however, the specificity of the nursing process makes it difficult to adjust nursing case reports to CARE. The aim was to analyze the publications of clinical cases with a nursing perspective in scientific journals, as well as the quality standards and evaluation systems used. Few journals reviewed agreed to publish nursing case reports or stated standards for authors to adjust to CARE. Preliminary results indicated average or poor adherence to CARE, with the most reported elements being: Keywords, patient information and introduction. Adherence was lower for the elements: Timeline, therapeutic intervention, follow-up and outcomes, and patient perspective. The characteristics of the nursing process implies a low adherence to CARE, so it is necessary to unify criteria to guide researchers, authors, reviewers and editors of scientific journals, as well as to improve the rigor and quality of the reports. Currently, there are no specific guidelines for reporting clinical case reports with a nursing perspective available. These normative gaps could be solved by developing a CARE extension adapted to the methodological characteristics of the nursing process.

Publication of research presented at STFM and NAPCRG conferences.

PURPOSE: Presentations of research are important in the dissemination of new knowledge, but they do not reach the same audience as research published in journals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proportion of presentations at recent major primary care research conferences that have become published. METHODS: Oral and poster presentations for completed and work-in-progress projects from the 2007 and 2008 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) and Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) annual conferences were included in the analysis. The first presenter for each presentation was searched on PubMed, and titles and abstracts for presentations were compared for content to titles and abstracts of potential matches found on PubMed. We analyzed the proportion of presentations that were published in peer-reviewed journals, mean time to publication, and the proportions of the type of journal in which the article appeared (family medicine vs other) were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1,329 presentations included in the study. Overall, 34.4% of projects presented were also published. More oral presentations (42.9%) were published than were poster presentations (25.3%) (P <.001). Mean time to publication was 15.4 months. Oral presentations were published more quickly (13.7 months) than poster presentations (18.6 months) (P <.001). Published reports appeared in 192 different journals. Family medicine journals accounted for 36.5% of published. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of all presentations at STFM and NAPCRG conferences were published in journals indexed in PubMed. Time to publication was comparable to that of other specialties. Fewer than 2 of every 5 reports were published are in a family medicine journal, suggesting vast breadth in family medicine research. Family medicine academicians need to refocus efforts on transforming presentations into published articles in peer-reviewed journals for broader dissemination of research findings.