Journal of Pediatric Urology (2014) 10, 355e360
Abstracts presented at the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) meetings (2003e2010): Characteristics and outcome Marco Castagnetti a,*, Ramnath Subramaniam b, Alaa El-Ghoneimi c a
Section of Paediatric Urology, Urology Unit, University Hospital of Padova, Monoblocco Ospedaliero, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35128 Padua, Italy b Department of Paediatric Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK c Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Robert Debre´ University Hospital, AP-HP University of Paris VII-Denis Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cite´, Paris, France Received 30 May 2013; accepted 18 September 2013 Available online 15 October 2013
KEYWORDS Publication rate; Meeting abstracts; Peer review; Congresses; Pediatrics; Urology
Abstract Objective: To determine the characteristics and outcome of abstracts presented to the meetings of the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU). Material and methods: Abstract books from 2003 to 2010 were reviewed and subsequent publication of presented abstracts determined by MEDLINE/PubMed search. Results: Of 1194 abstracts, 50e78% per year originated from 15 to 20 European countries and 50e22% from 8 to 13 non-European countries; 233 (19%) were basic science and 961 (81%) clinical. Clinical abstracts included 135 (14%) multicenter/prospective/randomized trials. These figures did not change significantly over time. A total of 564 (47%) abstracts were subsequently published, 65% within 1 year of the meeting, mostly in the Journal of Urology (33%) and the Journal of Pediatric Urology (21%). Multicenter/prospective/randomized trials studies (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.37e2.96) and abstracts originating from outside Europe (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.26 e2.05) were significantly more likely to be subsequently published in full. Conclusion: The ESPU meetings are a true occasion for international exchange of scientific endeavors. Almost half of the abstracts are subsequently published. The Journal of Urology and the Journal of Pediatric Urology are consistently the two major target journals for publication. Non-European countries, irrespective of whether English-speaking or not, seem significantly more likely to publish their abstracts. ª 2013 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 (0)49 821 2737; fax: þ39 (0)49 821 2721. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Castagnetti). 1477-5131/$36 ª 2013 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.09.020
356
Introduction The annual meetings of the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) aim to be an occasion for international dissemination of current research findings and medical advances that might influence practice. Nevertheless, no critical review is available to date about the outcome, in terms of subsequent publication, of abstracts presented at the ESPU meetings. Subsequent publication is considered to be an indirect indicator of the quality of presented abstracts, as it confirms that the content of the abstracts presented at the meeting was relevant enough to stand up to formal peer-review scrutiny and enter evidence-based medicine with final validation of the methods and results [1e4]. Similar investigations have been done for meetings of other urological [5e11] and pediatric societies [3,4,12e14], showing that generally one-third to half of all the abstracts presented are subsequently published in full, usually within 2 years from the meeting. A critical review of presented and subsequently published abstracts may also provide additional important information such as whether the meeting has a truly international participation, whether changes have occurred over time, and whether the official journal of the society serves as preferential pattern for publication of articles derived from presented abstracts. In the present report, we aimed to determine the composition of countries presenting abstracts to the annual ESPU meetings. We also looked at the characteristics of the presented abstracts and their subsequent publication, defined as outcome overall and per meeting year. Finally, we aimed to determine the target journals for publication and the peculiar characteristics, if any, of the abstracts eventually published in full.
Materials and methods The online abstract books (www.espu.org/events/previousevents/abstracts) from 2003 to 2010 were reviewed. Abstracts with incomplete data were excluded. Publication of the abstract in English in peer-reviewed journals subsequent to the year of presentation was determined by a MEDLINE/PubMed search using authors’ names according the algorithm proposed by Hoag et al. [7] and key words from titles using the Boolean operator AND. The last search was performed in October 2012. For categorization, journals were considered to be urological if included in the subject listing ‘‘urology’’ of the published list of journals indexed in PubMed and pediatric surgery journals if included in the subject listing ‘‘pediatric surgery’’. The remainders were classified as non-urological. In order to determine the composition of countries presenting abstracts at the ESPU meetings, abstracts were categorized as originating from European vs. non-European countries (Encarta, Encyclopaedia Britannica). In order to assess changes in composition of countries presenting abstracts over years, the number of countries presenting abstracts and number of abstracts originating from European vs. non-European countries was compared between the first and the last 4-year period considered for study.
M. Castagnetti et al. In order to assess the publication pattern, the proportion of abstracts subsequently published was determined both overall and per meeting year. The delay between the meeting year and the publication year was assessed in years. Again, results were compared between the first and the last 4-year period considered for study. The following variables were compared between published and unpublished abstracts, meeting year (first vs. last 4-year period), abstract type (clinical vs. basic research), presentation type (podium vs. poster), region of origin (European vs. non-European), mother tongue in the country of origin (English-speaking vs. non Englishspeaking), study design (multicenter/prospective/randomized clinical trial vs. others), number of abstracts originating from the institution during the study period (
Abstracts presented at the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) meetings (2003e2010): Characteristics and outcome Marco Castagnetti a,*, Ramnath Subramaniam b, Alaa El-Ghoneimi c a
Section of Paediatric Urology, Urology Unit, University Hospital of Padova, Monoblocco Ospedaliero, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35128 Padua, Italy b Department of Paediatric Urology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK c Department of Pediatric Surgery and Urology, Robert Debre´ University Hospital, AP-HP University of Paris VII-Denis Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cite´, Paris, France Received 30 May 2013; accepted 18 September 2013 Available online 15 October 2013
KEYWORDS Publication rate; Meeting abstracts; Peer review; Congresses; Pediatrics; Urology
Abstract Objective: To determine the characteristics and outcome of abstracts presented to the meetings of the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU). Material and methods: Abstract books from 2003 to 2010 were reviewed and subsequent publication of presented abstracts determined by MEDLINE/PubMed search. Results: Of 1194 abstracts, 50e78% per year originated from 15 to 20 European countries and 50e22% from 8 to 13 non-European countries; 233 (19%) were basic science and 961 (81%) clinical. Clinical abstracts included 135 (14%) multicenter/prospective/randomized trials. These figures did not change significantly over time. A total of 564 (47%) abstracts were subsequently published, 65% within 1 year of the meeting, mostly in the Journal of Urology (33%) and the Journal of Pediatric Urology (21%). Multicenter/prospective/randomized trials studies (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.37e2.96) and abstracts originating from outside Europe (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.26 e2.05) were significantly more likely to be subsequently published in full. Conclusion: The ESPU meetings are a true occasion for international exchange of scientific endeavors. Almost half of the abstracts are subsequently published. The Journal of Urology and the Journal of Pediatric Urology are consistently the two major target journals for publication. Non-European countries, irrespective of whether English-speaking or not, seem significantly more likely to publish their abstracts. ª 2013 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 (0)49 821 2737; fax: þ39 (0)49 821 2721. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Castagnetti). 1477-5131/$36 ª 2013 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2013.09.020
356
Introduction The annual meetings of the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) aim to be an occasion for international dissemination of current research findings and medical advances that might influence practice. Nevertheless, no critical review is available to date about the outcome, in terms of subsequent publication, of abstracts presented at the ESPU meetings. Subsequent publication is considered to be an indirect indicator of the quality of presented abstracts, as it confirms that the content of the abstracts presented at the meeting was relevant enough to stand up to formal peer-review scrutiny and enter evidence-based medicine with final validation of the methods and results [1e4]. Similar investigations have been done for meetings of other urological [5e11] and pediatric societies [3,4,12e14], showing that generally one-third to half of all the abstracts presented are subsequently published in full, usually within 2 years from the meeting. A critical review of presented and subsequently published abstracts may also provide additional important information such as whether the meeting has a truly international participation, whether changes have occurred over time, and whether the official journal of the society serves as preferential pattern for publication of articles derived from presented abstracts. In the present report, we aimed to determine the composition of countries presenting abstracts to the annual ESPU meetings. We also looked at the characteristics of the presented abstracts and their subsequent publication, defined as outcome overall and per meeting year. Finally, we aimed to determine the target journals for publication and the peculiar characteristics, if any, of the abstracts eventually published in full.
Materials and methods The online abstract books (www.espu.org/events/previousevents/abstracts) from 2003 to 2010 were reviewed. Abstracts with incomplete data were excluded. Publication of the abstract in English in peer-reviewed journals subsequent to the year of presentation was determined by a MEDLINE/PubMed search using authors’ names according the algorithm proposed by Hoag et al. [7] and key words from titles using the Boolean operator AND. The last search was performed in October 2012. For categorization, journals were considered to be urological if included in the subject listing ‘‘urology’’ of the published list of journals indexed in PubMed and pediatric surgery journals if included in the subject listing ‘‘pediatric surgery’’. The remainders were classified as non-urological. In order to determine the composition of countries presenting abstracts at the ESPU meetings, abstracts were categorized as originating from European vs. non-European countries (Encarta, Encyclopaedia Britannica). In order to assess changes in composition of countries presenting abstracts over years, the number of countries presenting abstracts and number of abstracts originating from European vs. non-European countries was compared between the first and the last 4-year period considered for study.
M. Castagnetti et al. In order to assess the publication pattern, the proportion of abstracts subsequently published was determined both overall and per meeting year. The delay between the meeting year and the publication year was assessed in years. Again, results were compared between the first and the last 4-year period considered for study. The following variables were compared between published and unpublished abstracts, meeting year (first vs. last 4-year period), abstract type (clinical vs. basic research), presentation type (podium vs. poster), region of origin (European vs. non-European), mother tongue in the country of origin (English-speaking vs. non Englishspeaking), study design (multicenter/prospective/randomized clinical trial vs. others), number of abstracts originating from the institution during the study period (
