Discrepancies of Abstracts Presented in Coloproctology Congresses and Later Publish as Full Manuscripts. A Brazilian Perspective

Samartine Junior, Hugo; Levy, Nicole Goldenberg; Paiva, Daniel Ferreira; Gracitelli, Giovanna Bertazzola; Silva, Lauro Igor; Aquino, José Luís Braga de; Mendes, Elisa Donalisio Teixeira

doi:10.1055/s-0043-1772783

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • J. Coloproctol. (Rio J.) 43 (3) • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1772783 copy

Discrepancies of Abstracts Presented in Coloproctology Congresses and Later Publish as Full Manuscripts. A Brazilian Perspective

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Introduction

The purpose of this retrospective bibliometric study was to assess the discrepancies between coloproctology surgery meeting abstracts and subsequent full-length manuscript publications.

Methods

Abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology Surgery from 2015 to 2019 were compared with matching manuscript publications. Discrepancies between the abstract and therefore the subsequent manuscript were categorized as major (changes within the purpose, methods, study design, sample size, statistical analysis, results, and conclusions) and minor (changes within the title, authorship, and number of female authors) variations.

Results

The conversion rate of abstracts in published manuscripts was 6,9% (121 abstracts). There were inconsistencies between the study title (66,1%), authorship (69,5%), study design (3,3%), sample size (39,2%), statistical analysis (24,8%), results (25,6%), and conclusions (12,4%) of manuscripts compared with their corresponding meeting abstracts.

Conclusion

As changes occur before manuscript publication of coloproctology surgery meeting abstracts, caution should be exercised in referencing abstracts or altering surgical practices based on abstracts content.

Keywords:
discrepancies; manuscripts; meeting abstracts; publications; colorectal surgery

Published		N	%	P-value
Change in the title of the article	No	41	33,9%	<0,001
Change in the title of the article	Yes	80	66,1%	<0,001
Author changes	Increased	40	33,1%	0,589
	Decreased	44	36,4%	Ref.
	Manteined	37	30,6%	0,34
Changes of authors (change of order)	No	18	14,9%	<0,001
Changes of authors (change of order)	Yes	103	85,1%	<0,001
Changes of female authors	Increased	27	25,7%	<0,001
	Decreased	24	22,9%
	Manteined	54	51,4%
Change of female authors (changed order)	No	65	61,9%	<0,001
Change of female authors (changed order)	Yes	40	38,1%	<0,001
Change in outcome	No	90	74,4%	<0,001
Change in outcome	Yes	31	25,6%	<0,001
Change in conclusions	No	106	87,6%	<0,001
Change in conclusions	Yes	15	12,4%	<0,001
Change in Study Design	No	117	96,7%	<0,001
Change in Study Design	Yes	4	3,3%	<0,001
Change in Number of Patient	Increased	21	18,3%	<0,001
	Decreased	24	20,9%	<0,001
	Manteined	68	59,1%	Ref.
	Not Meseaured	2	1,7%	<0,001

		Unpublished		Published		Total		P-value
		N	%	N	%	N	%	P-value
Category	Oral	512	31,3%	75	62,0%	587	33,4%	<0,001
Category	Poster	1.123	68,7%	46	38,0%	1.169	66,6%	<0,001
Multicentric	No	1.504	92,0%	103	85,8%	1.607	91,6%	0,019
Multicentric	Yes	131	8,0%	17	14,2%	148	8,4%	0,019
Awarded	No	890	98,9%	84	93,3%	974	98,4%	<0,001
Awarded	Yes	10	1,1%	6	6,7%	16	1,6%	<0,001
Presence statistical analysis	No	538	68,3%	52	50,9%	590	66,3%	<0,001
Presence statistical analysis	Yes	249	31,7%	50	49,1%	299	33,7%	<0,001
Presence of women	No	91	7,4%	21	20,0%	112	8,4%	<0,001
Presence of women	Yes	1.140	92,6%	84	80,0%	1.224	91,6%	<0,001
Classes de n° autoras	Zero	91	7,4%	21	20,0%	112	8,4%	<0,001
	One	216	17,5%	21	20,0%	237	17,7%
	2-3	591	48,0%	51	48,6%	642	48,1%
	4-5	290	23,6%	9	8,6%	299	22,4%
	≥6	43	3,5%	3	2,9%	46	3,4%
Study design	Randomized clincal trial	4	0,2%	0	0,0%	4	0,2%	<0,001
	Experimental Studies	40	2,4%	11	9,1%	51	2,9%
	other	23	1,4%	1	0,8%	24	1,4%
	Prospective	188	11,5%	39	32,2%	227	12,9%
	Case report	848	51,9%	19	15,7%	867	49,4%
	Retrospective	482	29,5%	44	36,4%	526	30,0%
	Literature review without systematic review	4	0,2%	0	0,0%	4	0,2%
	Systematic review	7	0,4%	1	0,8%	8	0,5%
	Case series	39	2,4%	6	5,0%	45	2,6%

Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia Av. Marechal Câmara, 160/916, 20020-080 Rio de Janeiro/RJ Brasil, Tel.: (55 21) 2240-8927, Fax: (55 21) 2220-5803 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: sbcp@sbcp.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Address for correspondence Hugo Samartine Junior, MD, Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil (e-mail: hugosjunior@gmail.com).