Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:54:30.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Searching for and use of conference abstracts in health technology assessments: Policy and practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2006

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

Abstract

Objectives: Current policy and practice regarding identification of and extent of use of data from conference abstracts in health technology assessment reviews (TARs) are examined.

Methods: The methods used were (i) survey of TAR groups to identify general policy and experience related to use of abstract data, and (ii) audit of TARs commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and published between January 2000 and October 2004.

Results: Five of seven TAR groups reported a general policy that included searching for and including studies available as conference abstracts and presentations. A total of sixty-three published HTA reports for NICE were identified. Of these reports, thirty-eight identified at least one randomized controlled trial available as an abstract/presentation. Twenty-six (68 percent) of these thirty-eight TARs included studies available as abstracts.

Conclusions: There are variations in policy and practice across TAR groups regarding the searching for and inclusion of studies available as conference abstracts. There is a need for clarity and transparency for review teams regarding how abstract data are managed. If conference abstracts are to be included, reviewers need to allocate additional time for searching and managing data from these sources. Review teams should also be encouraged to state explicitly their search strategies for identifying conference abstracts, their methods for assessing these abstracts for inclusion and, where appropriate, how the data were used and their effect on the results.

Keywords

Technology assessment biomedicalCongressesReview literatureData collectionRandomized controlled trials
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 283 - 287
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

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
Chokkalingam A, Scherer R, Dickersin K. 1998. Concordance of data between conference abstracts and full reports. Baltimore, MD: Cochrane Colloquium;
Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, et al. 1993 Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA. 269: 2749– 2753.Google Scholar
Dickersin K. 1997 How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev. 9: 15– 21.Google Scholar
Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. 2003 How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 7: 1– 76.Google Scholar
Hopewell S. 2001. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. The Cochrane Database Syst Rev.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 and abstract book. Ontario: Cochrane Colloquium; 77.
McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, et al. 2000 Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 356: 1228– 1231.Google Scholar
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. (reference N0515). Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf 2004.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the technology appraisal process. (reference N0514). Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP.pdf. 2004.
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
Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. 2005. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev.Google Scholar
Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, et al. 2000 Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 4: 1– 115.Google Scholar
2005: The Cochrane Library, Planning the metaanalysis: Methods of identifying trials. Appendix 11A. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 218.
Tooher R, Middleton P, Griffin T, et al. 2004: How different are conference abstracts of surgical RCTs from the subsequent full publication? Ottawa: Cochrane Collaboration Colloquia; 57.
Weintraub WH. 1987 Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisal. J Pediatr Surg. 22: 11– 13.Google Scholar