Introduction: Much of the research presented at conference meetings never go on to be published in peer-reviewed literature, thereby limiting the dispersion of these findings to a larger audience. We sought to assess if this was true with regard to CAEP meetings, by establishing the publication rate and factors correlated with publication of CAEP abstracts in peer-reviewed journals from 2013-2017. Methods: We conducted a scoping review that included all CAEP abstracts from 2013-2017, obtained through the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine. Two reviewers screened and extracted data from all abstracts individually, with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Data extracted from abstracts included province of authors, sample size, study design, the presence of statistically positive or negative findings, status of publication, date of acceptance to a journal, and journal of publication. Databases searched for publication status included MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Ovid Health Star. A level of evidence (LOE) was assigned using the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. Results: All abstracts (1090) from 2014-2017 have been analyzed thus far. Inter-rater agreement for data extraction was high ( value 0.85). 17.1% (186/1090) of abstracts presented at the conference had a corresponding full text publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Articles were published in 102 different journals, with the greatest number of publications in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM) (15.1%, 28/186), followed by Academic Emergency Medicine (10.2%, 19/186). The mean time to publication was 51 weeks (95% CI 43,59). 30.6% (57/186) of published abstracts had statistically positive findings, while 10.8% (20/186) had negative findings. A significant difference was present between publication findings and publication status (p<0.0001, chi-squared). 68.8% (128/186) of published articles were of level III evidence. A statistical difference was found between LOE and publication status (p<0.0001, chi-squared). Conclusion: A large number of abstracts presented at CAEP are presently unpublished. There may be a publication bias in the literature as a greater number of studies with positive findings have been published. Additionally, two-thirds of studies published are of level III evidence. An increasing emphasis should be placed in publishing studies with higher levels of evidence, and more studies with negative findings.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.