Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:53:55.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case study of the comparison of data from conference abstracts and full-text articles in health technology assessment of rapidly evolving technologies: Does it make a difference?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2006

Yenal Dundar ,
Susanna Dodd ,
Paula Williamson ,
Rumona Dickson  and
Tom Walley
Yenal Dundar
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Susanna Dodd
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Paula Williamson
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Rumona Dickson
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Tom Walley
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine (i) the consistency of reporting research findings presented in conference abstracts and presentations and subsequent full publications, (ii) the ability to judge methodological quality of trials from conference abstracts and presentations, and (iii) the effect of inclusion or exclusion of data from these sources on the pooled effect estimates in a meta-analysis.

Methods: This report is a case study of a selected health technology assessment review (TAR) of a rapidly evolving technology that had identified and included a meta-analysis of trial data from conference abstracts and presentations.

Results: The overall quality of reporting in abstracts and presentations was poor, especially in abstracts. There was incomplete or inconsistent reporting of data in the abstract/presentations. Most often inconsistencies were between conference slide presentations and data reported in published full-text articles. Sensitivity analyses indicated that using data only from published papers would not have altered the direction of any of the results when compared with those using published and abstract data. However, the statistical significance of three of ten results would have changed. If conference abstracts and presentations were excluded from the early analysis, the direction of effect and statistical significance would have changed in one result. The overall conclusions of the original analysis would not have been altered.

Conclusions: There are inconsistencies in data presented as conference abstracts/presentations and those reported in subsequent published reports. These inconsistencies could impact the final assessment results. Data discrepancies identified across sources included in TARs should be highlighted and their impact assessed and discussed. Sensitivity analyses should be carried out with and without abstract/presentation data included in the analysis. Incomplete reporting in conference abstracts and presentations limits the ability of reviewers to assess confidently the methodological quality of trials.

Keywords

Technology assessment biomedicalReview literatureRandomized controlled trialsMeta-analysis
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 288 - 294
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagnall AM, Jones L, Ginnelly L, et al. 2003 A systematic review of atypical antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia. Health Technol Assess. 7: 1– 193.Google Scholar
Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, et al. 2002 An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 84: 615– 621.Google Scholar
Burls A, Clark W, Stewart T, et al. 2002 Zanamivir for the treatment of influenza in adults: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 6: 1– 87.Google Scholar
Chilcott J, Wight J, Lloyd Jones M, et al. 2001 The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 5: 1– 61.Google Scholar
Chokkalingam A, Scherer R, Dickersin K. 1998. Concordance of data between conference abstracts and full reports. Baltimore, MD: Cochrane Colloquium;
Clark W, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. 2004 The clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults: A systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 8: 1– 105.Google Scholar
Clegg A, Bryant J, Nicholson T, et al. 2001 Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer's disease: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 5: 1– 137.Google Scholar
Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, et al. 2004 Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase: A systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 8: 1– 120.Google Scholar
Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson, et al. 2006 Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies. Health Technol Assess. 10: iii– iv,ix-145.Google Scholar
Forbes C, Shirran L, Bagnall AM, et al. 2001 A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer. Health Technol Assess. 5: 1– 110.Google Scholar
Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, et al. 2004 Coronary artery stents: A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 8: 1– 242.Google Scholar
Hopewell S. 2003 Assessing the impact of abstracts from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand in Cochrane reviews. Respirology. 8: 509– 512.Google Scholar
Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L. 2004: Trials reported as abstracts and full publications: How do they compare? 12th Cochrane Colloquium. October 2-6. Program & abstract book. Ontario, Canada: 77.
Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, et al. 2002. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.Google Scholar
Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, et al. 2002 The effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 6: 1– 110.Google Scholar
Khan K, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, et al. 2001. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report Number 4. 2nd ed. University of York, York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination;
Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Brezden-Masley C, et al. 2004 Quality of abstracts describing randomized trials in the proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings: Guidelines for improved reporting. J Clin Oncol. 22: 1993– 1999.Google Scholar
Lister-Sharp D, McDonagh MS, Khan KS, et al. 2000 A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer. Health Technol Assess. 4: 1– 113.Google Scholar
Lloyd Jones M, Hummel S, Bansback N, et al. 2001 A rapid and systematic review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Health Technol Assess. 5: 1– 128.Google Scholar
McDonagh MS, Bachmann LM, Golder S, et al. 2000 A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in the medical management of unstable angina. Health Technol Assess. 4: 1– 95.Google Scholar
Meads C, Cummins C, Jolly K, et al. 2000 Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 4: 1– 153.Google Scholar
Moher D, Schachter HM. 2002 Potential solutions to the problem of conducting systematic reviews of new health technologies. CMAJ. 166: 1674– 1675.Google Scholar
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (reference N0515). 2004. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_methods.pdf.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the technology appraisal process. (reference N0514). Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP.pdf. 2001.
Royle P, Bain L, Waugh N. 2005 Systematic reviews of epidemiology in diabetes: Finding the evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 5: 2.Google Scholar
Royle P, Waugh N. 2003 Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 7: 1– 51.Google Scholar
Schachter HM, Kovesi T, Ducharme F, et al. 2001. The challenges of early assessment: Leukotriene receptor antagonists (technology rep no 19). Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment;
Shepherd J, Waugh N, Hewitson P. 2000 Combination therapy (interferon alfa and ribavirin) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 4: 1– 67.Google Scholar
Tooher R, Middleton P, Griffin T, et al. How different are conference abstracts of surgical RCTs from the subsequent full publication? Ottawa: Cochrane Collaboration Colloquia; 2004: 57.
Weintraub WH. 1987 Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisal. J Pediatr Surg. 22: 11– 13.Google Scholar