Cosponsored by: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the Key Dates: Abstract Abstract Submission Deadline: October 16, at PM EDT online using the official Genitourinary Cancers Symposium Abstract . results track, session type, topic, or media. Filter: Date; Track; Type; Topic; Media Discussion - Oral Abstract Session B. Session: Oral Abstract Session B. To date, however, the success of the societies in eliminating duplication has not Flow charts illustrating number of abstracts from American Society of Clinical requires that all submitted abstract information “previously published, online or in .. industry-sponsored research Am J Public Health –80, Crossref.
To assess whether these patterns have changed in recent years, we also reviewed abstracts from the ASCO leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes categories and compared these with abstracts presented at ASH Concordance between each author's assessments was excellent.
ASCO Announces New Conflict of Interest Policy - The ASCO Post
These findings are similar to the larger to analysis and suggest that duplicate submissions remain common and may be preferentially sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Our search methodology used ASCO as the reference point from which all duplicate abstracts were identified. This strategy may have overlooked repeat abstract acceptances that occurred during this period but did not include ASCO For instance, during our review, a substantial number minimum, 24 of ASH and ASH abstracts were identified as duplicative.
In addition, alterations of titles or authors in serial abstracts may have impeded our ability to identify all duplicate presentations and funding entities. For instance, repetitive abstracts frequently omitted the name of a search keyword used in the initial abstract title or added or deleted authors in sequential abstracts. Therefore, our calculations likely underestimate the full scope of duplicate publications. The role of industry support of abstract sponsorship, although substantial, may also be underestimated.
ASH and ASCO policies rely on investigators to provide full disclosure, and our analysis only included mention of employment or leadership positions or research funding as evidence of industry sponsorship. Abstracts disclosing other forms of remuneration, such as consultant or advisory roles or other funding, were not considered to be industry sponsored, despite the potential for authors to have a stake in the success of the presented information.
Disclosure requirements can also be confusing, and it is left to the authors to determine whether their compensation satisfies the criteria for disclosure and, if so, to which category it belongs. It was not uncommon for an individual author's conflict of interest COI disclosures to vary between sequential abstract publications, reflecting the confusing nature of this process or the possibility that many authors do not take this requirement particularly seriously.
Of note, several studies evaluating the interpretation of research associated with COIs have demonstrated that such work is viewed with a higher degree of skepticism than research without associated COIs. In addition, parent company—subsidiary company relationships were at times unclear, and it was not unusual to find parent companies listed as funding entities in abstracts involving the product of a subsidiary or vice versa.
This ambiguity could cloud the reader's ability to identify the relationship between a funding entity and the subject of a given abstract. Nevertheless, we are confident that our search methodology was sufficient to capture the overwhelming majority of the relevant information.
The motivations for duplicate submissions are diverse and include academic pressure to publish, pressures felt by pharmaceutical companies to ensure that their work is financially rewarded, and pressures on meeting organizers and the societies to develop an agenda that interests a diverse audience, which includes researchers, clinicians, patients, the general public, and the pharmaceutical industry and by extension business and investing community.
The marketing benefit garnered by companies as a result of repetitive presentations is unknown but may be considerable when data are presented effectively at large international meetings to a highly selected target audience. There are also multiple incentives for academic physicians. Oral and poster presentations at national and international meetings are directly linked to academic recognition, promotions, and consequently income.
The recognition garnered and the relationship with industry provide a gateway to other opportunities, such as additional grant funding, national and international speaking engagements, and invitations to advisory committees and speakers' bureaus. In addition, it is widely recognized that the abstract authors may not actually compose the abstract content, but rather, the drafts are prepared by the pharmaceutical companies or medical writing companies that the companies support financially.
The incidence of this practice is not known. Access to the primary data is sometimes limited, and the timeframe for review and modification of the abstract is often quite brief. Moreover, it is common to rotate the authors so that the honor of presenting the data is shared from meeting to meeting.
Pharmaceutical company sponsorship may lead to a bias against presenting negative results or alternatively spinning the results positively in the conclusion or title. However, it is evident that this practice occurs in other medical disciplines as well. Other publications have detailed the phenomenon of repetitive presentations at urology, orthopedic, and general surgery meetings.
The higher percentage of repetitive abstract presentations we describe may reflect a greater reliance on pharmaceutical industry sponsorship in hematologic drug development compared with other medical specialties. Interestingly, many of the publications in other fields also highlighted the prevalence of author and title modifications in duplicate abstracts. It can be argued that duplicate presentations at ASH and ASCO target different audiences and therefore result in more effective dissemination of information.
This could certainly be the case when data are represented at international meetings overseas, including the European Society of Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association.
In addition, the size of ASH and ASCO makes it difficult for attendees to be present at all relevant presentations, and repeat presentations may allow interested parties to attend at subsequent meetings.
However, other forms of publicizing this information are already used by both societies. Tumor-specific subspecialty meetings by ASCO and conference reviews offered by both ASCO and ASH, as well as regional meetings organized by universities and state societies, are plentiful and provide access to information for those who did not attend the national meetings.
The accessibility of the abstracts as well as the actual presentations online also argues against the need for duplicate presentations. Furthermore, although periodic updates may be important, the frequency of the updates every 6 months and the lack of substantial changes in the data, coupled with the prominent degree of pharmaceutical sponsorship, suggest that marketing, rather than dissemination of new scientific findings, may be a motive in many instances.
However, based on our findings, it is clear that the current approach is imperfect.
If national societies desire to eliminate or decrease duplicate presentations, the meeting organizers, abstract reviewers, and particularly the authors share the responsibility of evaluating the submissions more critically. Strategies could include use of software to identify repeat presentations, improvements to the COI process, and a requirement that previous presentations of the data be specifically mentioned in the submitted abstract.
All authors Collection and assembly of data: All authors Data analysis and interpretation: All authors Manuscript writing: All authors Final approval of manuscript: Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript.
The section includes several model processes, such as an automated process for creating Kaplan-Meier and waterfall plots.Local Hookup Free Flirt Chat Dating Site Online Singles & Personals
Others have proposed solutions that are alternatives to conventional publishing [ 43 ]. Physicists, for example, prepublish manuscripts in an electronic archive arXivwhich then undergo commentary from the scientific community and revision http: Ultimately, our obligation to patients who enroll in clinical trials is to report the results. Massey, Vinay Prasad, Susan E. Massey, Ruibin Wang Data analysis and interpretation: Bates, Tito Fojo Manuscript writing: Massey, Vinay Prasad Final approval of manuscript: Vinay Prasad, Susan E.
Bates, Tito Fojo Disclosures The authors indicated no financial relationships. Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.
Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials. Publication bias and research on passive smoking: Comparison of published and unpublished studies. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards.
Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials.
Off-label use of cancer drugs: A benchmark is established. The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: Factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. Publication outcomes of phase II oncology clinical trials.
Am J Clin Oncol. Presentation and subsequent publication rates of phase I oncology clinical trials.
Publication bias in clinical research. Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: Publication bias and clinical trials. Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: Discontinuation and non-publication of surgical randomised controlled trials: Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.
N Engl J Med. Saito H, Gill CJ. How frequently do the results from completed US clinical trials enter the public domain? Consistency of phase III clinical trial abstracts presented at an annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology compared with their subsequent full-text publications.
- Original Contributions
- Quick Links
Compendium of unpublished phase III trials in oncology: Characteristics and impact on clinical practice. Non-publication and delayed publication of randomized trials on vaccines: Time to publication among completed clinical trials. Half of US clinical trials go unpublished. Completion and publication rates of randomized controlled trials in surgery: Publication rates of registered clinical trials in macular degeneration.
Inadequate dissemination of phase I trials: A retrospective cohort study. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: Factors associated with publication following presentation at a transplantation meeting. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions.