• A C O Okonkwo, H D J Hogg, and F C Figueiredo.
• Newcastle Eye Centre, The Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
• Eye (Lond). 2016 Nov 1; 30 (11): 1433-1438.

AbstractPurpose44.5% of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences are published. 26.5% of abstracts presented are basic science. The 2005 Walport Report reformed clinical academic training in the United Kingdom (UK) to promote trainee research. This study aims to analyse UK Ophthalmology research output following the reconstruction of clinical academic training.Patients and Methods1862 abstracts presented at The Royal College of Ophthalmologists' (RCOphth) Annual Congress from May 2005-May 2012 were examined using PubMed. Publication trends were analysed using SPSS v22 (IBM), using Spearman's rank coefficient and Mann-Whitney U test.Results44 (2.4%) abstracts were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 88 (4.7%) basic science, and 231 (12.4%) oral presentations. 486 (26.6%) abstracts were published to a mean impact factor (IF) of 2.39 (95% CI 2.21-2.57). Mean time to publication from presentation was 15.17 (13.88-16.48) months, negatively correlating with IF (r=-0.149, P<0.003). Oral presentation (P<0.0001), RCTs (P=0.002), and basic science (P<0.0001) abstracts all made publication significantly more likely, with hazard ratios of 2.63 (2.13-2.24), 2.07 (1.3-3.2), and 1.92 (1.41-2.59), respectively. Higher IF was associated with oral presentation (3.4 vs 2.16, P<0.0001), basic science (3.57 vs 2.35, P<0.0001), and RCTs (4.78 vs 2.38, P=0.002). No significant change in publication rate was seen across the 8 years (P=0.61).ConclusionThe proportion of basic science and total abstracts published that are presented at the RCOphth is lower than that in other biomedical conferences. RCTs, basic science abstracts, and oral presentations are more likely to be published. There was no improvement in publication rates following the 2005 Walport Report.

14 keywords...

hide…