Full-text publication of abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses.

INTRODUCTION Empirical evidence has indicated that only a subsample of studies conducted reach full-text publication and this phenomenon has become known as publication bias. A form of publication bias is the selectively delayed full publication of conference abstracts. The objective of this article was to examine the publication status of oral abstracts and poster-presentation abstracts, included in the scientific program of the 82nd and 83rd European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses, held in 2006 and 2007, and to identify factors associated with full-length publication. METHODS A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed in April 2013 using author names and keywords from the abstract title to locate abstract and full-article publications. Information regarding mode of presentation, type of affiliation, geographical origin, statistical results, and publication details were collected and analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS Approximately 51 per cent of the EOS 2006 and 55 per cent of the EOS 2007 abstracts appeared in print more than 5 years post congress. A mean period of 1.32 years elapsed between conference and publication date. Mode of presentation (oral or poster), use of statistical analysis, and research subject area were significant predictors for publication success. LIMITATIONS Inherent discrepancies of abstract reporting, mainly related to presentation of preliminary results and incomplete description of methods, may be considered in analogous studies. CONCLUSIONS On average 52.2 per cent of the abstracts presented at the two EOS conferences reached full publication. Abstracts presented orally, including statistical analysis, were more likely to get published.

Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: a study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty.

Background context Studies involving factor analysis (FA) of the items in the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome assessment instrument have revealed inconsistent factor structures for the individual items. Purpose This study examined whether the factor structure of the NASS varied in relation to the severity of the back/neck problem and differed from that originally recommended by the developers of the questionnaire, by analyzing data before and after surgery in a large series of patients undergoing lumbar or cervical disc arthroplasty. Study design/setting Prospective multicenter observational case series. Patient sample Three hundred ninety-one patients with low back pain and 553 patients with neck pain completed questionnaires preoperatively and again at 3 to 6 and 12 months follow-ups (FUs), in connection with the SWISSspine disc arthroplasty registry. Outcome measures North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument. Methods First, an exploratory FA without a priori assumptions and subsequently a confirmatory FA were performed on the 17 items of the NASS-lumbar and 19 items of the NASS-cervical collected at each assessment time point. The item-loading invariance was tested in the German version of the questionnaire for baseline and FU. Results Both NASS-lumbar and NASS-cervical factor structures differed between baseline and postoperative data sets. The confirmatory analysis and item-loading invariance showed better fit for a three-factor (3F) structure for NASS-lumbar, containing items on “disability,” “back pain,” and “radiating pain, numbness, and weakness (leg/foot)” and for a 5F structure for NASS-cervical including disability, “neck pain,” “radiating pain and numbness (arm/hand),” “weakness (arm/hand),” and “motor deficit (legs).” Conclusions The best-fitting factor structure at both baseline and FU was selected for both the lumbar- and cervical-NASS questionnaires. It differed from that proposed by the originators of the NASS instruments. Although the NASS questionnaire represents a valid outcome measure for degenerative spine diseases, it is able to distinguish among all major symptom domains (factors) in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty; overall, the item structure could be improved. Any potential revision of the NASS should consider its factorial structure; factorial invariance over time should be aimed for, to allow for more precise interpretations of treatment success.