COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY, INCORPORATED An Observational Study of Orthopaedic Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Text Publications

Background: Research abstracts are frequently referenced in orthopaedic textbooks and influence orthopaedic care. However, little is known about the quality of information provided in the abstracts, the frequency of publi-cation of complete papers after presentation of abstracts, or any discrepancies between abstracts and pub-lished papers. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of information provided in orthopaedic abstracts, rates of publication of full-text articles after presentation of abstracts, predictors of publication of full-text articles, and consistency between abstracts and full-text articles. Methods: We retrieved all abstracts from the 1996 scientific program of the sixty-third Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. For each abstract, we recorded the completeness of reporting and key features of the study design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. A computerized Medline and PubMed search established whether the abstract had been followed by publication of a full-text article. Finally, we evalu-ated the consistency of reporting between abstracts and final publications. Results: The program included 465 abstracts, 66 % of which were on prognostic studies. All abstracts described the study design, and 70.7 % of the designs were observational. Key methodological issues were reported in less than half of the abstracts, and information on data analysis was reported in <15%. One hundred and fifty-nine (34%) of the 465 abstracts were followed by publication of a full-text article. The mean time to publication (an