Home
October 2009 November 2009 December 2009
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
Week 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Week 46 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Week 47 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Week 48 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Week 49 29 30
Reach urologists

Duplicate Presentations on Prostate Cancer at American Urological Association and European Association of Urology Annual Meetings - Abstract Show Comments PDF Print E-mail
  
Thursday, 02 July 2009

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

We determined the rate of duplicate research presentations at recent American Urological Association and European Urological Association annual meetings.

We cross-referenced all clinical research presentations related to prostate cancer presented at the 2006 American Urological Association and European Urological Association annual meetings with those presented at the corresponding annual meetings in 2005, 2006 and 2007 using a defined search strategy based on author names, abstract titles, study design and objectives. All data abstraction was performed in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers to ensure accuracy.

We identified 282 and 312 abstracts on prostate cancer clinical research at the 2006 European Urological Association and American Urological Association annual meetings, respectively. The overall duplication rate of American Urological Association abstracts was 19.2% (60 of 312). Of duplicated abstracts 80.0% (48 of 60) were presented at the European Urological Association annual meeting the same year. Duplication of European Urological Association abstracts was identified in 20.9% (59 of 282). Authors who presented the same research (71 duplicate abstracts) at the 2 meetings altered the presentations in various ways, including a different study title in 40.8%, a different first and senior author in 14.1% and 18.3%, and increased or decreased sample size in 8.5% and 14.1%, respectively.

Approximately a fifth of clinical research abstracts on prostate cancer presented at the American Urological Association annual meeting were also presented at the European Urological Association meeting and vice versa. Inconsistencies between duplicate abstracts raise concerns about the integrity of the underlying studies. Stricter submission guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings from the 2 meetings may help limit this practice.

Written by:
Pop GH, Fesperman SF, Ball DA, Yeung LL, Vieweg J, Dahm P. Are you the author?

Reference:
J Urol. 2009 Jun 15. Epub ahead of print.
doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.04.024

Read an Editorial about this Article by a UroToday.com Contributing Medical Writer

PubMed Abstract
PMID:19535105

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section

Reader Comments

Please log-in or register in order to submit comments.

Powered by AkoComment!

 
User Rating: / 1
PoorBest


 
Visitor Ratings:
Healthcare Professionals:
5 (1 votes)


Bookmark and Share

Member's Section

Login

Sign Up

Quick Search

Meet the Expert


All Experts


Featured Conference

Media and Publisher

Advertising Rates
Reprints

Working with Industry

Case Studies
Sponsorship Opportunities

Prostate Cancer
Sponsored by