Taxa de publicação, na forma de artigos completos, de resumos apresentados em evento científico de pesquisa odontológica
Publication rate of abstracts presented at a dental scientific meeting
Leles, C.R.; Rocha, S.S.; Simões, P.A.; Compagnoni, M.A.
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.35, n3, p.141-147, 2006
Resumo
Uma forma de se medir a qualidade das pesquisas apresentadas em encontros científicos é a publicação desses estudos em periódicos, na forma de artigos completos, visto que a submissão final permite uma avaliação mais rigorosa do desenho, da metodologia e das conclusões do estudo. O objetivo deste estudo foi determinar a taxa de publicação, na forma de artigos completos, dos resumos de trabalhos apresentados na 16a Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, realizada no ano de 1999. O material de estudo foi composto por 775 resumos de trabalhos de pesquisa, redigidos em português, divididos em três sessões. Para a identificação dos resumos publicados na forma de texto completo foi utilizada uma busca bibliográfica eletrônica, em fonte de pesquisa de referência para a área de saúde: Medline - disponível em http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/. Dos 775 resumos, foram identificados 116 artigos completos, o que corresponde a 15% do total de trabalhos apresentados na forma de resumos. Avaliando a distribuição dos 116 artigos completos de acordo com o tipo de estudo, a área odontológica e o periódico, notou-se uma prevalência dos estudos de pesquisa laboratorial in vitro, nas áreas de Materiais Dentários e Dentística e maior número de trabalhos publicados em dois periódicos nacionais de indexação internacional. Os resultados indicam uma baixa taxa de publicação de artigos completos, sugerindo que medidas são necessárias para a redução das barreiras à publicação de artigos e maiores incentivos no processo de publicação.
Palavras-chave
Publicação, resumos, pesquisa odontológica
Abstract
One measure of the quality of research presented at scientific meetings is the peer-reviewed publication rate that arises from the study presentation. This allows for a more rigorous review of design, methodology and conclusions of published papers. The aim of this study is to determine abstract to publication ratio for papers presented at a Brazilian scientific meeting. It was selected all 775 abstracts presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Oral Research Society in 1999. Abstracts referred to original scientific research, all written in Portuguese. Identification of complete papers was performed thought a comprehensive search at Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed). It was identified 116 publications, 15% of all presented abstracts, mainly in-vitro research in restorative dentistry and dental materials. Great part of studies was published at two international indexed Brazilian journals. It was concluded that abstract to publication ratio is low, and future research should address barriers to publication in dentistry and ways to support publication process.
Keywords
Publication, abstracts, dental research
References
1. Byerly WG, Rheney CC, Connelly JF, Verzino KC. Publication rates of abstracts from two pharmacy meetings. Ann Pharmacother. 2000; 34:1123-7.
2. Walby A, Kelly AM, Georgakas C. Abstract to publication ratio for papers presented at scientific meetings: how does emergency medicine compare? Emerg Med. 2001; 13:460-4.
3. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 1994; 272:158-62.
4. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. J Am Med Assoc. 1990; 263:1385-9.
5. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991; 337(8746):867-72.
6. Timmer A, Hilsden RJ, Cole J, Hailey D, Sutherland LR. Publication bias in gastroenterological research – a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002; 2(1):7.
7. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. J Am Med Assoc. 1998; 280:257-9.
8. Corry AM. A survey of the publication history of randomly selected IADR/AADR abstracts presented in 1983 and 1984. J Dent Res. 1990; 69:1453-5.
9. Scholey JM, Harrisson JE. Delay and failure to publish dental research. Evidence-Based Dentistry. 2005; 6:58-61.
10. Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica – SBPqO. Anais da Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica. Divisão Brasileira da IADR. Águas de São Pedro, SP, 8-11 de setembro de 1999. São Paulo: SBPqO, 1999.
11. Gorman RL, Oderda GM. Publication of presented abstracts at annual scientific meetings: a measure of quality? Vet Hum Toxicol. 1990; 32:470-2.
12. Rode SM. Editorial. Pesqui Odontol Bras. 2000;14 (suplemento):1.
13. Meranze J, Elisson N, Greenhow DE. Publications resulting from anesthesia meeting abstract. Anesth Analg. 1982; 61:445-8.
14. Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K, Hetherington J, Tarnow-Mordi W, Meinert C, et al. A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc. 1990; 263:1401-5.
15. Juzych MS, Shin DH, Coffey JB, Parrow KA, Tsai CS, Briggs KS. Pattern of publication of ophthalmic abstracts in peer-reviewed journals. Ophthalmology. 1991; 98:553-6.
16. Yentis SM, Campbell FA, Lerman J. Publication of abstracts presented at anesthesia meetings. Can J Anaesth. 1993; 40:632-4.
17. Goldman L, Loscalzo A. Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N Engl J Med. 1980; 303:255-9.
18. Soffer A. Beware the 200-word abstract. Arch Intern Med. 1976; 136:1232-3.
19. Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993;50:496-7.
20. Scholey JM, Harrison JE. Publication bias: raising awareness of potential problem in dental research. Br Dent J. 2003; 194:235-7.
21. Dickersin K, Min YI. Publication bias: the problem that won’t go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:135-46.
22. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. J Am Med Assoc. 1998; 280:254-7.
23. Coulter ID. Observational studies and evidence based practice: can’t live with them, can’t live without them. J Evid Base Dent Pract. 2003;3:1-4.
24. Bowrey DJ, Morris-Stiff G, Clark G, Carey PD, Mansel RE. Peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a regional surgical meeting. Med Educ. 1999; 33:212-4.
25. Marx WF, Cloft HJ, Do HM, Kallmes DF. The fate of neuroradiologic abstracts presented at national meetings in 1993: rate of subsequent publication in peer-reviewed, indexed journals. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1999; 20:1173-7.
26. Riordan FA. Do presenters to paediatricmeetings get their work published? Arch Dis Child. 2000; 83:524-6.
27. Roy D, Sankar V, Hughes JP, Jones A, Fenton JE. Publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society meetings. Clin Otolaryngol. 2001; 26:253-6.
28. Davies MW, Dunster KR, East CE, Lingwood BE. Fate of abstracts published in the proceedings of the first annual Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand Congress in 1997. J Paediatr Child Health. 2002; 38:501-6.
29. Forrest J, Miller A. Enhancing your practice through evidence-based decision making: finding the best clinical evidence. J Evid Base Dent Pract. 2001; 1:227-36.
30. Sutherland SE. Evidence-based dentistry: part IV. Research design and levels of evidence. J Can Dent Assoc. 2001; 67:375-8.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email