Abstract
Background
Publication bias is defined as favoring publication of research results based on their nature and direction (e.g., positive vs. negative results). We sought to determine the presence of publication bias in the plastic surgery literature.
Methods
Abstracts presented to the 2003 and 2004 Annual Meeting of European Association of Plastic Surgeons (EURAPS) were independently reviewed by two different reviewers. Abstracts were investigated for sample size, type of study, level of evidence, country of origin, presence of statistical results, and sponsorship. Publications within 6 years from the meeting were ascertained by electronic search of Medline and Embase databases. In the absence of positive searching results, authors were contacted directly. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression analysis were used to identify predictors of publication.
Results
One hundred thirty-two abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 128 abstracts met our inclusion criteria. Seventy-three (60.8 %) were published within 6 years of the European Association of Plastic Surgeons’ meeting. Primary authors of the remaining 55 unpublished abstracts were contacted.
Fishers exact analysis demonstrated that positive studies were more likely to be published (P = 0.045) with an odds ratio of 6.54. However, a logistic regression analysis did not show any statistically significant difference.
Conclusions
We found no evidence of publication bias in the review of manuscripts presented at the 2003 and 2004 Annual Meeting of EURAPS. Thus, researchers can be confident that the likelihood of manuscript acceptance will not be influenced by the direction of study findings.
Level of Evidence: Not ratable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Callaham ML et al (1998) Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 280(3):254–257
Hasenboehler EA et al (2007) Bias towards publishing positive results in orthopedic and general surgery: a patient safety issue? Patient Saf Surg 1(1):4
Moscati R et al (1994) Positive-outcome bias: comparison of emergency medicine and general medicine literatures. Acad Emerg Med 1(3):267–271
Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263(10):1385–1389
Olson CM et al (2002) Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 287(21):2825–2828
Harris IA et al (2007) Publication bias in abstracts presented to the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 15(1):62–66
Harris IA et al (2006) Publication bias in papers presented to the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting. ANZ J Surg 76(6):427–431
Pitak-Arnnop P et al (2010) Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: an observation on published controlled trials. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 38(1):4–10
Klassen TP et al (2002) Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 156(5):474–479
Dickersin K et al (1987) Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 8(4):343–353
Dudley HA (1978) Surgical research: master or servant. Am J Surg 135(3):458–460
Goldman L, Loscalzo A (1980) Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N Engl J Med 303(5):255–259
Meranze J, Ellison N, Greenhow DE (1982) Publications resulting from anesthesia meeting abstracts. Anesth Analg 61(5):445–448
McCormick MC, Holmes JH (1985) Publication of research presented at the pediatric meetings. Change in selection. Am J Dis Child 139(2):122–126
Eloubeidi MA, Wade SB, Provenzale D (2001) Factors associated with acceptance and full publication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form. Gastrointest Endosc 53(3):275–282
Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P (1994) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA 272(2):158–162
Thornton A, Lee P (2000) Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol 53(2):207–216
Mahid SS et al (2008) Assessment of publication bias for the surgeon scientist. Br J Surg 95(8):943–949
Evers JL (2000) Publication bias in reproductive research. Hum Reprod 15(10):2063–2066
Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56(2):455–463
Phillips CV (2004) Publication bias in situ. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:20
Bardy AH (1996) Report bias in drug research. Therapie 51(4):382–383
Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF (2003) Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 290(4):495–501
De Bellefeuille C, Morrison CA, Tannock IF (1992) The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol 3(3):187–191
Kiroff GK (2001) Publication bias in presentations to the Annual Scientific Congress. ANZ J Surg 71(3):167–171
Chalmers I et al (1990) A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA 263(10):1401–1405
Stern JM, Simes RJ (1997) Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315(7109):640–645
Juzych MS et al (1993) Whatever happened to abstracts from different sections of the association for research in vision and ophthalmology? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34(5):1879–1882
Okike K et al (2008) Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American volume). J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(3):595–601
Marx WF et al (1999) The fate of neuroradiologic abstracts presented at national meetings in 1993: rate of subsequent publication in peer-reviewed, indexed journals. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 20(6):1173–1177
Timmer A et al (2002) Publication bias in gastroenterological research—a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. BMC Med Res Methodol 2:7
Hampton T (2006) Rare disease research gets boost. JAMA 295(24):2836–2838
Dickersin K, Rennie D (2003) Registering clinical trials. JAMA 290(4):516–523
Conflict of Interest
None
Ethical standards
The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Arash Izadpanah and Ali Izadpanah contributed equally.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Izadpanah, A., Izadpanah, A., Islur, A. et al. Publication bias in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a retrospective review on 128 abstracts presented to the Annual EURAPS Meeting. Eur J Plast Surg 37, 387–392 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-014-0948-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-014-0948-2