EVALUATION OF THE CONVERSION RATE OF ABSTRACTS AND “E-POSTERS” FROM THE 2016 CANADIAN ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION CONGRESS INTO SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The publication of scientific research work is essential to disseminate the results observed and to benefit the scientific community. It also makes it possible to obtain local, national, and even global recognition. It also makes it possible to obtain funding, essential to carrying out future work. Many national scientific societies have studied the publication rate of papers presented at their annual meetings. There is currently no data regarding the conversion rate of an oral communication into an original article for the Canadian Orthopedic Association. We therefore conducted a study: to evaluate 1) the publication rate of communications accepted at the 2016 COA congress in Quebec City; and to describe 2) the characteristics of the articles influencing their publication. This bibliometric study included the 334 abstracts accepted for the annual conference of the COA in Quebec in 2016 (minimum 6 years of follow-up). Publication status was investigated using electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL between July and October 2022. All authors listed at the time of abstract and e-poster submission were identified and researched independently to confirm publication of the work presented at the 2016 COA. Time between communication and publication was censed. The quality of the publication was defined using the impact factor of the journals. The abstracts covered topics of orthopedics in 270 cases (80.8%), traumatology in 33 cases (9.9%), oncology in 9 cases (2.7%), basic research in 18 cases (5.4%) and teaching in 4 cases (1.20%). It was adult topics in 282 cases (88,9%) and pediatric topics in 35 cases (11,1%). The most importants subtopics was hip (82 cases, 25%), knee (70 cases, 21,1%) and shoulder (42 cases, 12,7%). The format of the scientific work was an oral communication in 205 cases (61.2%), and a “e-poster” in 129 cases (38.6%). The overall publication rate was 56%. Oral communications represented 68% of publications (n=139) and e-posters represented 54% (n=70). Oral communications were significantly more published than e-posters (p<0,01). The median delay between communication and publication in a referenced scientific article was 13 months [0;57]. Subgroup analysis showed a more favorable publication rate for prospective (n=101) versus retrospective studies (n=75) (p=0,025), international versus national (p=0,02) with significant versus non-significant results (p=0,005). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses had a significantly higher publication rate than case reports. Work on orthopedics was more published than other themes, particularly traumatology. The publication rate of oral communications and e-posters from the 2016 COA annual conference in Quebec City after 6 years is higher than other studies of this type. The impact factor of the journals publishing these articles confirms the quality of this conference.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,063 | 0,072 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,045 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».