The fate of abstracts presented at annual meetings of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland from 1993 to 2007.

ABSTRACT

Although the presentation of original research to learned societies is valuable, the target should be publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, the strength of a meeting may be assessed by the rate of the subsequent publication of papers from the presented abstracts. We conducted an analysis of abstracts presented at consecutive annual meetings of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery (SCTS) in Great Britain and Ireland over a 15-year period. Abstract books and other documentation from the 1993-2007 meetings were reviewed; abstracts from other major Cardiothoracic Surgery meetings held in 2007 were also reviewed. Medline was searched to identify the peer-reviewed publications arising from each work presented. For abstracts presented at SCTS in 2003-07, the factors potentially associated with publication were analysed by logistic regression. If no publications were identified, authors were contacted through a standardized email questionnaire to ascertain its status and reasons for non-publication. Over the 15-year period, 909 abstracts were presented at the SCTS meetings. The rate of publication rose from ~30% in the mid-1990s to consistently >60% from recent meetings, with a high of 81.3% from 2006. However, in comparison with other Cardiothoracic Surgery meetings in 2007, the chance of subsequent publication from SCTS (66.7%) was lower than from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (75.0%), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (83.9%) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (72.5%) meetings. For abstracts presented at the last five SCTS meetings, publication was most commonly in a speciality journal (56.3%) and the median time for publication was 15 months (range -24 to 63 months) with 14 papers published prior to presentation at the meeting. On regression analysis, the only factor associated with publication was the study design comparing randomized trials and systematic reviews with other types of study (P < 0.01). Of the 90 unpublished abstracts, 48 (53.3%) authors replied to an email questionnaire revealing that 41 (85.4%) were never submitted for publication. The most common reasons given were low priority (29.6%) and low likelihood of acceptance (24.1%). In recent years, the annual meeting of the Society has become a forum for the presentation of high-quality research that usually withstands peer-review, most commonly in a speciality journal. The rate of publication has increased to consistently >60%, although those that remain unpublished are generally never submitted. This compares favourably with national meetings of other surgical societies, although it is lower than other major cardiothoracic meetings which have an affiliated journal. At a time when it has been suggested that medical research in the UK is in decline, cardiothoracic surgery appears to be thriving.