Introduction: Much of the research presented at conference meetings never go on to be published in peer-reviewed literature, thereby limiting the dispersion of these findings to a larger audience. We sought to assess if this was true with regard to CAEP meetings, by establishing the publication rate and factors correlated with publication of CAEP abstracts in peer-reviewed journals from 2013-2017. Methods: We conducted a scoping review that included all CAEP abstracts from 2013-2017, obtained through the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine. Two reviewers screened and extracted data from all abstracts individually, with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Data extracted from abstracts included province of authors, sample size, study design, the presence of statistically positive or negative findings, status of publication, date of acceptance to a journal, and journal of publication. Databases searched for publication status included MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Ovid Health Star. A level of evidence (LOE) was assigned using the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. Results: All abstracts (1090) from 2014-2017 have been analyzed thus far. Inter-rater agreement for data extraction was high ( value 0.85). 17.1% (186/1090) of abstracts presented at the conference had a corresponding full text publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Articles were published in 102 different journals, with the greatest number of publications in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM) (15.1%, 28/186), followed by Academic Emergency Medicine (10.2%, 19/186). The mean time to publication was 51 weeks (95% CI 43,59). 30.6% (57/186) of published abstracts had statistically positive findings, while 10.8% (20/186) had negative findings. A significant difference was present between publication findings and publication status (p<0.0001, chi-squared). 68.8% (128/186) of published articles were of level III evidence. A statistical difference was found between LOE and publication status (p<0.0001, chi-squared). Conclusion: A large number of abstracts presented at CAEP are presently unpublished. There may be a publication bias in the literature as a greater number of studies with positive findings have been published. Additionally, two-thirds of studies published are of level III evidence. An increasing emphasis should be placed in publishing studies with higher levels of evidence, and more studies with negative findings.