Discrepancies Between Conference Abstracts And Full Publications In Ophthalmology Randomized Controlled Trials
Main Article Content
Abstract
Sometimes, information given in conference abstracts does not fully match the findings of the corresponding full-text report on a randomized controlled trial (RCT). At the same time, there is no clear link between the potential conflicts of authors and how often their RCTs are published. The purpose of this research was to (1) compare the main results presented in conference abstracts with what was published in journals and (2) find out if financial conflicts disclosed by authors during these trials affect the chances of publication. Researchers included abstracts from randomized controlled trials featured at annual ophthalmology conferences from 2001 to 2004. Through direct contact with researchers and searching digital databases, we found the first peer-reviewed article that summarized each abstract by November 2013. These differences were each put into two categories: qualitative, where the effect direction changed and quantitative, where the size of the effect changed. Conflicts of interest were grouped based on financial relationships, working for a company, serving as a consultant, holding intellectual property or receiving gifts from industry. RRs were calculated to examine if different types of conflict were associated with either publishing, not publishing or with results that could not be confirmed by statistical evidence. Of all the abstracts examined, 44.8% went on to be fully published. When 86 records reported the same main outcome at the same time, 47 (54.7%) of them had inconsistencies—7 were different in kind and the other 40 in amount. Discrepancies between the quantity measurements could not be labeled. They ranged from <10%, 10–20% and >20% in 14, 5, 14 and 7 cases, respectively. Reports of conflict of interest made by the lead author of a study were more likely to be published and did so faster (RR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.04–1.64; log-rank p = 0.026). Having financial support (RR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.19–1.90) or getting gifts (RR = 1.42; 95% CI = 1.05–1.92) strongly contributed to a paper’s likelihood of being published, setting aside the statistical result. More than fifty percent of the matched abstract and publication pairs had differences in reporting main findings, suggesting the information in abstracts may not be accurate. We regularly observed that manuscripts from authors with conflicts of interest were more likely to be published, regardless of their outcomes.
Article Details
References
Weintraub WH. Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? an objective appraisal. J Pediatr Surg. 1987;22:11–3. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3468(87)80005-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gross CP, Steiner CA, Bass EB, Powe NR. Relation between prepublication release of clinical trial results and the practice of carotid endarterectomy. JAMA. 2000;284:2886–93. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.22.2886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Falagas ME, Rosmarakis ES. Clinical decision-making based on findings presented in conference abstracts: is it safe for our patients? Eur Heart J. 2006;27(17):2038–9. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. March 23, 2011 – available for download as PDF free of charge online at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx. Accessed 28 Mar 2016.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 28 Mar 2016.
Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2014. Chapters available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Accessed 28 Mar 2016. [PubMed]
Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: York Publishing Services, Ltd. Available at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2016.
Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, Walley T, Haycox A, Williamson PR. Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(5):iii-iv–ix-145. doi: 10.3310/hta10050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dwan K, Altman DG, Creswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;19(1):MR000031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000031.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e66844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin A-M, Dickersin K. Using ClinicalTrials.gov to supplement information in ophthalmology conference abstracts about trial outcomes: a comparison study. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130619. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Swiontkowski MF, Sprague S, et al. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:615–21. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200204000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kleweno CP, Bryant WK, Jacir AM, Levine WN, Ahmad CS. Discrepancies and rates of publication in orthopedic sports medicine abstracts. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1875–9. doi: 10.1177/0363546508319054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, Adams D, Vandermeer B, Armstrong PW. Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295:1281–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.11.1281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Klassen TP, Wiebe N, Russell K, Stevens K, Hartling L, Craig WR, et al. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. Arch PediatrAdolesc Med. 2002;156:474–9. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.156.5.474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. FASEB J. 2005;19:673–80. doi: 10.1096/fj.04-3140lfe. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chokkalingam A, Scherer R, Dickersin K. Agreement of data abstracts compared to full publications. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:61S–2. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(98)80159-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Scherer RW, Ugarte-Gil C, Schmucker C, Meerpohl JJ. Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke Y, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an update of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):iii. doi: 10.3310/hta14080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000005. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance of direction of trial result. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:MR000006. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289(4):454–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.4.454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(3):252–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa065779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemporay Clinical Trials. 2008;29(2):109–13. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2007.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:MR000033. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Thompson D. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:573–6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199308193290812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Author responsibilities-Conflicts of interest. Available at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html. Accessed 28 Mar 2016.
Bland JM, Altman DG. The logrank test. BMJ. 2004;328(7447):1073. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7447.1073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]