You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Abstracts presented at the Association of British Neurologists: what becomes of them and what is their impact?
  1. Sola Odunsi1,
  2. Christopher Kobylecki2,3,
  3. Matthew Jones2,3
  1. 1 North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, UK
  2. 2 Department of Neurology, Greater Manchester Neurosciences Centre, Salford, UK
  3. 3 Institute of Brain, Behaviour and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Matthew Jones, Department of Neurology, Greater Manchester Neurosciences Centre, Salford, M6 8HD UK; matthew.jones{at}manchester.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2014-309183

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Publication in peer-reviewed journals of work presented in abstract form at clinical academic meetings is important, given that under-reporting of research findings may distort the published literature and constitute research misconduct.1 A systematic review suggests that only around 30% of abstracts submitted to biomedical meetings achieve publication.1 The fate of abstracts presented at neurology meetings in the UK, and factors associated with subsequent publication, have not to our knowledge been studied.

    We performed a PubMed search of titles, first and last authors of abstracts presented at Association of British Neurologists (ABN) meetings between 2007 and 2009. An independent search of the abstracts from one ABN meeting showed excellent inter-rater reliability (Cohen's κ=0.870; p<0.0001). The …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SO was involved in data acquisition and analysis, writing of first draft and subsequent revisions. CK was involved in conception; data analysis; review and critical review of manuscript. MJ was involved in conception; data analysis; critical review of manuscript and supervision.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.