Publication fate of abstracts presented at british association of clinical anatomists annual meetings.

Introduction: Dissemination of research is an integral part of the scientific process. Failure to disseminate research limits the scope for critical appraisal and potentially wastes valuable resources. The gold standard for dissemination of research is peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a national meeting. The primary objective of this study was quantitative assessment of the abstracts presented at British Association of Clinical Anatomists (BACA) summer and winter meetings with regards to the rates of subsequent publication and comparison to other medical specialties. Materials and Methods: Published abstracts from the summer and winter meetings of BACA between the years of 2000 and 2014 were analysed. MEDLINE was searched to identify peer-reviewed publications arising from each presented abstract. Results: In total, 1807 abstracts were presented between the years of 2000-2014. The mean number of abstracts presented each year was 60.2, (range 26-157). In total, 20.4% of abstracts were subsequently published in MEDLINE-indexed journals with a median publication time of 19 months. The mean number of cadaveric prosections was 45.2±78.8, (range 1-960). Analysis of abstracts focusing on radiographic imaging found the mean number of scans was 224.4±807.1, (range 1-6439). Conclusion: Biannual meetings of BACA are a forum for the presentation of high-quality anatomical research. BACA meeting abstracts have generally reduced publication rates compared to some surgical specialty meetings, however, there is no analysis available for an equivalent anatomical meeting. Further work should try to identify reasons that may hinder or limit subsequent publication of the anatomy abstracts presented at BACA. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.