Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.

By R. Scherer, P. Langenberg, E. von Elm. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007

1,027 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science, Pharmacology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8984f632a0ff5ec47aeda3022253adc6d558f5b6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In History and Philosophy of Science

In Pharmacology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (2008, background): “The Cochrane review by Scherer et al [6] investigating the full publication of results initially presented in abstracts found that only 63% of results from abstracts describing randomized or controlled clinical trials are published in full and ‘positive’ results were more frequently published than n”
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009, neutral): “05) than if they are not [125,206,207].”
CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration (2008, background): “Where the results of a trial are reported only as a conference abstract, this abstract may provide the only permanent information about a study and the only way that its results can be accessed by most readers [1].”
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021, positive): “Studies show that large percentages of research presented as papers and posters at conferences never make their way into the published literature, particularly if the study’s results were statistically negative [63, 69].”
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews (2021, background): “Studies show that large percentages of research presented as papers and posters at conferences never make their way into the published literature, particularly if the study’s results were statistically negative [63, 69].”
Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010, background): “In many fields of research, papers are more likely to be published [3,4,5,6], to be cited by”
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration (2011, background): “…of trials reported in conference abstracts never reach full publication (Diezel et al 1999, Scherer et al 2018) and those that are eventually published in full have been shown to have results that are systematically different from those that are never published in full (Scherer et al 2018).”
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. (2012, neutral): “Blinding All 71 (36) 725 290 (40) 33 (17) 286 84 (29) Mortality 13 (5) 119 39 (33) 5 (3) 48 10 (21) Objective 20 (12) 208 81 (39) 9 (5) 63 23 (37) Subjective 38 (19) 398 170 (43) 19 (9) 175 51 (29)”
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007, neutral): “Authors or funders may have conflicts of interest that influence any of the following: the design of the study (228); choice of exposures (228, 229), outcomes (230), statistical methods (231); and selective publication of outcomes (230) and studies (232).”