본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Discrepancies Between Plastic Surgery Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Length Manuscript Publications.

Aesthetic plastic surgery 2016 Vol.40(5) p. 778-84

Denadai R, Araujo GH, Pinho AS, Denadai R, Samartine H, Raposo-Amaral CE

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

【연구 목적】 성형외과 학술대회 초록과 이후 출판된 본문의 간극을 평가하여, 학술대회 초록을 인용하거나 이를 근거로 임상적 결정을 내릴 때 주의가 필요함을 입증하기 위한 서지학적 연구의 배경과 목표를 제시한다.

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Denadai R, Araujo GH, et al. (2016). Discrepancies Between Plastic Surgery Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Length Manuscript Publications.. Aesthetic plastic surgery, 40(5), 778-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-016-0680-3
MLA Denadai R, et al.. "Discrepancies Between Plastic Surgery Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Length Manuscript Publications.." Aesthetic plastic surgery, vol. 40, no. 5, 2016, pp. 778-84.
PMID 27422258

Abstract

[BACKGROUND] The purpose of this bibliometric study was to assess the discrepancies between plastic surgery meeting abstracts and subsequent full-length manuscript publications.

[METHODS] Abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Plastic Surgery from 2010 to 2011 were compared with matching manuscript publications. Discrepancies between the abstract and the subsequent manuscript were categorized as major (changes in the purpose, methods, study design, sample size, statistical analysis, results, and conclusions) and minor (changes in the title and authorship) variations.

[RESULTS] The overall discrepancy rate was 96 %, with at least one major (76 %) and/or minor (96 %) variation. There were inconsistencies between the study title (56 %), authorship (92 %), purpose (6 %), methods (20 %), study design (36 %), sample size (51.2 %), statistical analysis (14 %), results (20 %), and conclusions (8 %) of manuscripts compared with their corresponding meeting abstracts.

[CONCLUSION] As changes occur before manuscript publication of plastic surgery meeting abstracts, caution should be exercised in referencing abstracts or altering surgical practices based on abstracts' content.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

MeSH Terms

Bibliometrics; Brazil; Confidence Intervals; Congresses as Topic; Humans; Manuscripts as Topic; Observer Variation; Publications; Quality Control; Surgery, Plastic

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)