Publication Rates of Podium Versus Poster Presentations at the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Meetings

Abstract

Background: Presentations at scientific meetings are often used to influence clinical practice, yet many presentations are not ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals. Previously reported publication rates for orthopaedic specialties have varied from 34% to 52%. In addition, the publication rate of accepted abstracts is a strong indicator of meeting quality, and it has a potential effect on clinical practice. To date, no studies have investigated publication rates in the field of sports medicine, and specifically for abstracts presented at American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) meetings. Purpose: To determine the overall publication rate of abstracts presented at AOSSM annual meetings and whether there were differences in publication rates between poster and podium presentations. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar for all published manuscripts pertaining to abstracts presented at the 2006 to 2010 AOSSM annual meetings. Abstracts were classified according to presentation type (podium, poster) and subsequently were categorized into subspecialty area and study design. For published abstracts, the journal and publication date were recorded. Results: A total of 1665 abstracts were submitted to AOSSM annual meetings from 2006 to 2010, with 444 abstracts accepted (26.7% overall acceptance rate); there were 277 podium presentations and 167 posters. Of these 444 abstracts, 298 (67.1%) were published within 3 years in peer-reviewed journals. The overall publication rates for podium and poster presentations were 73.3% and 56.9%, respectively. For the combined years of 2006 to 2010, podium presentations were 2.08 (95% CI, 1.39-3.11) times more likely to be published compared with poster presentations. Conclusion: The overall publication rate of abstracts presented at AOSSM annual meetings (67.1%) was much higher than that reported for other orthopaedic meetings (34%-52%), highlighting the overall educational value and information quality of AOSSM meetings. In addition, there was a significant difference in the overall publication rates for podium and poster presentations. These data suggest that the quality and type of poster and podium presentations may not be equal, and these potential differences should be kept in mind when considering changes in clinical practice according to type of meeting presentation. Furthermore, AOSSM annual meeting program planners should consider these results when investigating ways to further improve the quality of research presented.