Publication outcomes of abstracts presented at 2013 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT) conference

Miguel Glatstein, Amanda Katz, Nicole Taylor, Julieta Werthein, Efrat Zandberg, Christopher Hoyte

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: Scientific conferences are useful in disseminating medical research and advancing the medical and scientific fields. An important measure of the success of such conferences is the proportion of research that is published in peer-reviewed journals. The conversion rates for toxicology abstracts to full-text publications at previous North American toxicology meetings were low. No study has assessed the publication rate from the 2013 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT) conference. Methods: We reviewed 316 abstracts presented at the 2013 NACCT Conference. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline databases using the authors’ names and keywords, through September 2019. We then identified and excluded cases and case reports to reanalyze the data. Results: Thirty-three of 316 abstracts (10.4%) subsequently appeared in 17 different peer-reviewed journals, led by Clinical Toxicology (13 out of 33, 3%). Leading countries of origin for abstract submission were the USA (285), Canada (9), and the UK (8). Excluding case reports, 25 out of 207 abstracts (12.0%) achieved publication in peer-reviewed journals. Conclusions: Fewer than one in eight abstracts reached publication within six years of the 2013 NACCT meeting, even after accounting for and excluding case reports. This rate is lower than in other specialty medical societies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1010-1013
Number of pages4
JournalClinical Toxicology
Volume58
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - 2 Oct 2020

Keywords

  • abstracts
  • Conference
  • publications
  • toxicology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Publication outcomes of abstracts presented at 2013 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT) conference'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this