Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.

Clicks: 453
ID: 47712
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #4 of 75 articles by views in journal of clinical epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
To determine the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts presented at World Congresses on Pain (WCPs) and to quantify agreement in results presented in those abstracts with their corresponding full-length publications.We screened abstracts of five WCPs held from 2008 to 2016 to find abstracts describing SRs. Two authors searched for corresponding full publications using PubMed and Google Scholar in April 2018. Methods and outcomes extracted from abstracts were compared with their corresponding full publications. The reporting quality of abstracts was evaluated against the PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist.We identified 143 conference abstracts describing SRs. Of these, 90 (63%) were published as full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals by April 2018, with a median time from conference presentation to publication of 5 months (interquartile range: -0.25 to 14 months). Among 79 abstract-publication pairs evaluable for discordance, there was some form of discordance in 40% of pairs. Qualitative discordance (different direction of the effect) was found in 13 analyzed pairs (16%). The median adherence by abstracts to each PRISMA-A checklist item was 33% (interquartile range: 29% to 42%).Conference abstracts of pain SRs are selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.
Reference Key
saric2019conferencejournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Saric, Lenko;Dosenovic, Svjetlana;Saldanha, Ian J;Kadic, Antonia Jelicic;Puljak, Livia;
Journal journal of clinical epidemiology
Year 2019
DOI
S0895-4356(19)30485-8
URL
Keywords
systematic review quality publication publication bias reporting

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.