The Fate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons


The purpose of this study was to determine the publication rate and time to publication following abstract presentation at a major neurosurgical meeting, namely the 2005 annual meeting of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS). We reviewed all 754 abstracts presented at the 2005 CNS annual meeting to determine publication status and identify factors that are associated with publication. A standardized database search was conducted to determine publication status. Predictors of publication were examined. Of the 754 abstracts presented, 383 (50.8%) were published after 5.3 years. The median time to publication was 450 days (range-646 to 1953 days) with 16% being published prior to the meeting. Oral presentations had a publication rate of 64.0% compared to 48.3% for poster presentations. Of the abstracts not published prior to the meeting, 77% were published within 3 years of the meeting. In univariate analysis, neuro-oncology abstracts (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.34 - 2.64; p < 0.001) and abstracts selected for oral presentation (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.30 - 2.99; p = 0.001) had a significantly higher likelihood of publication. These associations remained independent in multivariate analysis. Neuro-oncology abstracts (p = 0.004), basic science research (p = 0.003) and abstracts selected for oral presentation (p = 0.036) were published in higher impact factor journals. Half of presentations at the annual CNS meeting will be published in peer-reviewed journals with a median time to publication of 450 days. Neuro-oncology abstracts and those abstracts selected for oral presentation have a significantly higher likelihood of publication.

Share and Cite:

Elliott, C. , Mehta, V. , Poon, C. , Oliver, M. and Gourishankar, S. (2016) The Fate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Congress of Neurologic Surgeons. Open Journal of Modern Neurosurgery, 6, 1-8. doi: 10.4236/ojmn.2016.61001.

Received 9 October 2015; accepted 3 January 2016; published 6 January 2016

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.3. Identifying Full-Text Publications

2.4. Impact Factor Analysis

The ISI Web of Knowledge citation database (Philadelphia, USA) was used to determine the 2010 impact factor for each journal. Publications in journals not indexed or in journals that did not have an impact factor listed were excluded from the analysis.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables were compared using chi-square test. Continuous variables were reported as means with standard deviations or in the case of outliers as medians. Continuous variables were compared using the t test. To determine predictors of full-text publication, odds ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. All statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS (version 18.0 for Windows).

3. Results

3.2. Publication Rate and Time to Publication

3.3. Journal of Publication and Impact Factor

Articles were published in 121 different journals with 236 (61.4%) of publications in dedicated neurosurgery journals and one-third of publication occurring in either Neurosurgery or the Journal of Neurosurgery. The top 8 journals in which publications occurred and their 2010 impact factors are listed in Table 2. The overall mean impact factor for all publications was 3.319 (0.309 - 53.484). The mean impact factor for publication in dedicated neurosurgery journals was 2.75 compared to a mean impact factor of 3.80 for publications in all other journals.

3.4. Univariate Predictors of Publication

3.5. Multivariate Predictors of Publication and Higher Impact Factor

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion


The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.


Author contributions to the study and manuscript preparation include the following. Conception and design: Elliott, Gourishankar, Mehta. Data acquisition: Elliott, Poon, Oliver. Analysis and interpretation of data: Elliott, Gourishankar. Manuscript preparation: Elliott. Critical revision: Gourishankar, Mehta. Study supervision: Gourishankar.

Cite this paper

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Arrive, L., Dono, P., Lewin, M., Dahan, H., Monnier-Cholley, L. and Tubiana, J.M. (1996) Publication Rate of Original Papers Orally Presented at the Journees Fracaises de Radiologie. Journal of Radiology, 82, 1719-1722.
[2] Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P.J., Guyatt, G.H., Cook, D.J., Swiontkowski, M.F., Sprague, S. and Schemitsch E.H. (2002) An Observational Study of Orthopaedic Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Text Publications. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (America Volume), 84, 615-621.
[3] Herbison, P. (2004) Full Publication of Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials Published at International Continence Society Meetings. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 23, 101-103.
[4] Scherer, R.W., Dickersin, K. and Langenberg, P. (1994) Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts. A Meta-Analysis. JAMA, 272, 158-162.
[5] Scherer, R.W., Langenberg, P. and von Elm, E. (2007) Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, Article No.: MR000005.
[6] Carrol, A.E., So, C.M., Tarini, B.A., Ringold, S. and Chirstakes, D.A. (2003) Does Presentation Format at the Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting Predict Subsequent Publication? Pediatrics, 112, 1238-1241.
[7] Castillo, J., Garcia-Guasch, R. and Cifuentes, I. (2002) Fate of Abstracts from the Paris 1995 European Society of Anaesthesiologists Meeting. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 19, 888-893.
[8] De Bellefeuille, C., Morrison, C.A. and Tannock, I.F. (1992) The Fate of Abstracts Submitted to a Cancer Meeting: Factors Which Influence Presentation and Subsequent Publication. Annals of Oncology, 3, 187-191.
[9] Dumville, J.C., Petherick, E.S. and Cullum, N. (2005) When Will I See You Again? The Fate of Research Findings from International Wound Care Conferences. International Wound Journal, 5, 26-33.
[10] Glick, N., MacDonald, I., Knoll, G., Brabant, A. and Gourishankar, S. (2006) Factors Associated with Publication Following Presentation at a Transplantation Meeting. American Journal of Transplantation, 6, 552-556.
[11] Daluiski, A., Kuhns, C.A., Jackson, K.R. and Lieberman, J.R. (1998) Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 16, 645-649.
[12] Patel, A.J., Cherian, J., Fox, B.D., Whitehead, W.E., Curry, D.J., Luerssen, T.G. and Jea, A. (2011) Publication Patterns of Oral and Poster Presentations at the Annual Meetings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Journal of Neurosurgery, 115, 1258-1261.
[13] Gavazza, J.B., Foulkes, G.D. and Meals, R.A. (1996) Publication Pattern of Papers Presented at the American Society for Surgery of the Hand Annual Meeting. The Journal of Hand Surgery, 21A, 742-745.
[14] Hamlet, B.W.P., Fletcher, A. and Meals, R.A. (1997) Publication Patterns of Papers Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (America Volume), 79, 1138-1143.
[15] Krzyzanowska, M.K., Pintilie, M. and Tannock, I.F. (2003) Factors Associated with Failure to Publish Large Randomized Trials Presented at an Oncology Meeting. JAMA, 290, 495-501.
[16] Wang, J.C., Yoo, S. and Delamarter, R.B. (1999) The Publication Rates of Presentations at Major Spine Specialty Society Meetings. Spine, 24, 425-427.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.