Although conferences are important vehicles for discussing scientific findings, the translation of presented research into peer-reviewed manuscripts is a crucial subsequent step in the research process. Given the evolving subspecialization of cardiology, we sought to characterize the temporal and comparative outcomes of abstracts presented at a subspecialty cardiac electrophysiology conference. Abstracts presented at the Heart Rhythm Society conference (1994 through 2006; HRS abstracts) and abstracts presented at the American Heart Association conference (2003; AHA abstracts) were studied. Subsequent publications, impact factors, and citation rates were determined. A total of 3,850 HRS and 1,000 AHA abstracts were studied. More human abstracts were presented at HRS than AHA (p <0.05). Compared with HRS abstracts, more AHA abstracts were published (p <0.001) and had higher impact factors and citation rates (p <0.001 for both). These differences were attributable in part to the greater proportion of human HRS abstracts. Compared with HRS abstracts, electrophysiology-related AHA abstracts were published less (p <0.001), and these publications had similar impact factors (p = 0.38) although greater citation rates (p = 0.001). The number and publication rate of HRS abstracts increased over the 15-year period, as did their publication impact factors and citation rates (p <0.001 for all). In conclusion, there are significant differences between AHA and HRS abstracts. Although AHA abstracts were more likely to be published overall, the publication rate and impact of electrophysiology abstracts presented at both a subspecialty (HRS) and a major cardiovascular conference (AHA) were comparable. There has also been a growth in the number and impact of cardiac electrophysiology abstracts presented at HRS in recent years.
Although scientific conferences provide an opportunity to present preliminary research findings, this is only an initial step toward subsequent publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The outcome of contemporary abstracts presented at the 3 major cardiovascular conferences was recently compared. Although we have previously studied cardiac electrophysiology abstracts presented in 1 specific year, whether the outcome of these subspecialty abstracts has varied temporally given the evolution of cardiac electrophysiology, and how such abstracts presented at subspecialty conferences compared with major cardiovascular conferences is not known. We thus evaluated the outcomes of cardiac electrophysiology-related abstracts presented at the Annual Scientific Sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS abstracts) over a 15-year period and compared them with general and cardiac electrophysiology abstracts presented at the Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association (AHA abstracts).
Methods
We reviewed all HRS abstracts presented in 1994, 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006 at HRS (previously the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology). These years were selected to evaluate temporal trends over a 15-year period and also to allow for potential publications to have eventuated from the last year studied. We also reviewed 1,000 randomly selected AHA abstracts presented in 2003 and compared these with HRS abstracts in the same year. Abstracts were categorized as a human, animal, or cellular study.
MEDLINE database searches for subsequent publications arising from these abstracts were performed by cross referencing abstract authors and key words as previously described. The ISI Web of Knowledge was accessed to derive the impact factors from the year each article was published and citation rates.
Continuous variables are reported as mean ± SD or median and interquartile range (IQR) as appropriate. Categorical variables are reported as number and percentage. Proportions were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Comparisons between means were analyzed using paired or unpaired t tests. Multivariable binary logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of publication. Multivariable linear regression models were used to identify predictors of impact factors and citation rates. Statistical tests were performed using SPSS 16 (SPSS Inc., Armonk, New York), and statistical significance was set at p <0.05.
Results
There were more human (74.0 vs 47.3%, p = 0.02), fewer animal (16.8 vs 34.6%, p <0.001), and fewer cellular (8.9 vs 18.2%, p <0.001) HRS abstracts compared with AHA abstracts. A greater proportion of AHA abstracts were published compared with HRS abstracts (60.3 vs 47.7%, p <0.001). When stratified by study category, however, only human AHA abstracts were published more frequently than human HRS abstracts (58.6 vs 43.7%, p <0.001), with animal abstracts (62.4% vs 58.6, p = 0.51) and cellular abstracts (60.8 vs 65.1, p = 0.72) having similar publication rates. Publications arising from AHA abstracts had a higher median impact factor compared with those arising from HRS abstracts (6.25 [IQR 3.29 to 9.97] vs 3.56 [IQR 2.69 to 9.13], p <0.001). Median total citation rate was also greater for AHA abstract publications compared with HRS abstract publications (25 [IQR 11 to 51] vs 10 [IQR 4 to 25], p <0.001).
Of the AHA abstracts reviewed, 12.3% of these were electrophysiology-related. Compared with HRS abstracts, these electrophysiology-related AHA abstracts had a lower publication rate (16.0 vs 47.7%, p <0.001). Although published articles had similar impact factor (6.04 [IQR 2.55 to 9.21] vs 5.52 [IQR 2.69 to 9.13], p = 0.38), electrophysiology-related AHA abstracts had a greater citation rate compared with HRS abstracts (33 [IQR 7 to 36] vs 10 [IQR 4 to 25], p = 0.001).
In this study, 3,849 abstracts presented at HRS over the 15-year period were considered. The number of abstracts presented increased from 521 to 993, as did the number published ( Figure 1 ). The percentage published within 1 year of presentation increased from 14.4% to 21.0% (p <0.001), and the median time to publication decreased from 1.76 to 1.08 years (p <0.001, Table 1 and Figure 2 ). The overall impact factor of publishing journals increased from 1.91 to 3.70 (p <0.001, Table 1 ). Similar increases in impact factor were seen for original articles arising from each abstract category (p <0.001 for all). Median citations per year for original articles also increased from 0.6 to 1.0 (p <0.001, Table 1 ). By logistic regression, experimental research abstract category, randomized study design, positive findings, and more recent year of abstract presentation were independent predictors of publication ( Table 2 ). By linear regression, more recent year of abstract presentation, randomized study design, and experimental study design were independent predictors of higher subsequent article impact factor ( Table 3 ). More recent year of abstract presentation and higher impact factor of the publishing journal were also independent predictors of higher citation rates ( Table 3 ).
| 1994 | 1997 | 2000 | 2003 | 2006 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of presented abstracts | 521 | 740 | 804 | 790 | 993 | <0.001 |
| Total articles published | 281 (54.1) | 320 (43.2) | 358 (44.5) | 377 (47.7) | 467 (47.0) | <0.001 |
| Articles published within 1 Year | 75 (14.4) | 84 (11.3) | 136 (16.9) | 123 (15.5) | 209 (21.0) | <0.001 |
| Time to publication, yrs | 1.76 (0.83–2.84) | 1.50 (0.92–2.67) | 1.34 (0.50–2.59) | 1.50 (0.67–2.25) | 1.08 (0.42–1.84) | <0.001 |
| Impact factor of original articles | 1.91 (1.70–4.77) | 2.11 (1.34–5.15) | 2.76 (1.36–4.55) | 3.56 (2.69–9.13) | 3.69 (1.71–6.13) | <0.001 |
| Citations per year | 0.6 (0.0–1.6) | 0.1 (0.0–0.4) | 0.8 (0.0–2.7) | 1.0 (0.0–3.1) | 1.0 (0.3–3.1) | <0.001 |
| Variable | Odds Ratio | 95% Confidence Interval | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental study design | 1.58 | 1.36–1.84 | <0.001 |
| Randomized study design | 1.31 | 1.01–1.70 | 0.042 |
| Positive (significant) findings | 1.19 | 1.05–1.36 | 0.008 |
| More recent year of presentation | 1.02 | 1.01–1.04 | 0.005 |
| Variable | Regression Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greater publishing journal impact factor | |||
| Experimental study design | 0.56 | 0.03–1.09 | 0.040 |
| Randomized study design | 1.58 | 0.78–2.50 | 0.001 |
| More recent year of presentation | 0.20 | 0.14–0.25 | <0.001 |
| Greater number of citations per year | |||
| More recent year of presentation | 0.10 | 0.05–0.15 | <0.001 |
| Greater impact factor journal | 0.19 | 0.15–0.24 | <0.001 |
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
