Table 4 Factors reported to be associated with inconsistent reporting between abstracts and full reports
From: A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research
First author, publication year | Study design | Field of study | Numbers of abstract-full-report pairs included for analyses | Factors related with inconsistent reporting | Association between factors and inconsistency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bhandari 2002 [2] | Survey | Orthopedics | 159 | Time from abstract presentation to the publication of the full report | Longer time to publication of full reports significantly increased the likelihood of an inconsistency (odds ratio = 1.5 for per-month increase, p < 0.01) |
Rosmarakis 2005 [20] | Survey | Infectious diseases and microbiology | 51 | Time from abstract presentation to publication of full reports | A trend found between longer time to publication of full reports and increased inconsistency (odds ratio = 1.76 for per year of delay, p = 0.07) |
Snedeker 2010 [21] | Survey | Veterinary pre-harvest or abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens | 59 | Time from abstract presentation to publication of full reports | Longer time to publication related with fewer outcome measures in full reports (than in abstracts) (p = 0.03) |