Links to Exploration step
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting
publication and citation</title>
<author><name sortKey="Winnik, Stephan" sort="Winnik, Stephan" uniqKey="Winnik S" first="Stephan" last="Winnik">Stephan Winnik</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Raptis, Dimitri A" sort="Raptis, Dimitri A" uniqKey="Raptis D" first="Dimitri A." last="Raptis">Dimitri A. Raptis</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af3"><addr-line>Department of Surgery</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Walker, Janina H" sort="Walker, Janina H" uniqKey="Walker J" first="Janina H." last="Walker">Janina H. Walker</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af4"><addr-line>Department of Pediatrics</addr-line>
,<institution>Cantonal Hospital Muensterlingen</institution>
,<addr-line>CH-8596 Muensterlingen</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Hasun, Matthias" sort="Hasun, Matthias" uniqKey="Hasun M" first="Matthias" last="Hasun">Matthias Hasun</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Speer, Thimotheus" sort="Speer, Thimotheus" uniqKey="Speer T" first="Thimotheus" last="Speer">Thimotheus Speer</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Clavien, Pierre Alain" sort="Clavien, Pierre Alain" uniqKey="Clavien P" first="Pierre-Alain" last="Clavien">Pierre-Alain Clavien</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af3"><addr-line>Department of Surgery</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af5"><institution>Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Komajda, Michel" sort="Komajda, Michel" uniqKey="Komajda M" first="Michel" last="Komajda">Michel Komajda</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af6"><addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>University Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, Pitie Salpetriere Hospital</institution>
,<addr-line>47 Boulevard de l'Hopital, 75013 Paris</addr-line>
,<country>France</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Bax, Jeroen J" sort="Bax, Jeroen J" uniqKey="Bax J" first="Jeroen J." last="Bax">Jeroen J. Bax</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af7"><addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>Leiden University Medical Center</institution>
,<addr-line>Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden</addr-line>
,<country>The Netherlands</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Tendera, Michal" sort="Tendera, Michal" uniqKey="Tendera M" first="Michal" last="Tendera">Michal Tendera</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af8"><addr-line>3rd Division of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>Medical University of Silesia</institution>
,<addr-line>Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice</addr-line>
,<country>Poland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Fox, Kim" sort="Fox, Kim" uniqKey="Fox K" first="Kim" last="Fox">Kim Fox</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af9"><addr-line>National Heart and Lung Institute</addr-line>
,<institution>Imperial College, ICMS Royal Brompton Hospital</institution>
,<addr-line>Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP</addr-line>
,<country>UK</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Van De Werf, Frans" sort="Van De Werf, Frans" uniqKey="Van De Werf F" first="Frans" last="Van De Werf">Frans Van De Werf</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af10"><addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Gasthuisberg</institution>
,<addr-line>Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven</addr-line>
,<country>Belgium</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mundow, Ciara" sort="Mundow, Ciara" uniqKey="Mundow C" first="Ciara" last="Mundow">Ciara Mundow</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af11"><addr-line>Department of Scientific Programme Management</addr-line>
,<institution>European Society of Cardiology</institution>
,<addr-line>2035 Route des Colles – Les Templiers, Sofia Antipolis</addr-line>
,<country>France</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Luscher, Thomas F" sort="Luscher, Thomas F" uniqKey="Luscher T" first="Thomas F." last="Lüscher">Thomas F. Lüscher</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af5"><institution>Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ruschitzka, Frank" sort="Ruschitzka, Frank" uniqKey="Ruschitzka F" first="Frank" last="Ruschitzka">Frank Ruschitzka</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Matter, Christian M" sort="Matter, Christian M" uniqKey="Matter C" first="Christian M." last="Matter">Christian M. Matter</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af5"><institution>Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno>
<idno type="pmid">22669850</idno>
<idno type="pmc">3530902</idno>
<idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530902</idno>
<idno type="RBID">PMC:3530902</idno>
<idno type="doi">10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113</idno>
<date when="2012">2012</date>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">000360</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting
publication and citation</title>
<author><name sortKey="Winnik, Stephan" sort="Winnik, Stephan" uniqKey="Winnik S" first="Stephan" last="Winnik">Stephan Winnik</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Raptis, Dimitri A" sort="Raptis, Dimitri A" uniqKey="Raptis D" first="Dimitri A." last="Raptis">Dimitri A. Raptis</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af3"><addr-line>Department of Surgery</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Walker, Janina H" sort="Walker, Janina H" uniqKey="Walker J" first="Janina H." last="Walker">Janina H. Walker</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af4"><addr-line>Department of Pediatrics</addr-line>
,<institution>Cantonal Hospital Muensterlingen</institution>
,<addr-line>CH-8596 Muensterlingen</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Hasun, Matthias" sort="Hasun, Matthias" uniqKey="Hasun M" first="Matthias" last="Hasun">Matthias Hasun</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Speer, Thimotheus" sort="Speer, Thimotheus" uniqKey="Speer T" first="Thimotheus" last="Speer">Thimotheus Speer</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Clavien, Pierre Alain" sort="Clavien, Pierre Alain" uniqKey="Clavien P" first="Pierre-Alain" last="Clavien">Pierre-Alain Clavien</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af3"><addr-line>Department of Surgery</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af5"><institution>Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Komajda, Michel" sort="Komajda, Michel" uniqKey="Komajda M" first="Michel" last="Komajda">Michel Komajda</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af6"><addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>University Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, Pitie Salpetriere Hospital</institution>
,<addr-line>47 Boulevard de l'Hopital, 75013 Paris</addr-line>
,<country>France</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Bax, Jeroen J" sort="Bax, Jeroen J" uniqKey="Bax J" first="Jeroen J." last="Bax">Jeroen J. Bax</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af7"><addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>Leiden University Medical Center</institution>
,<addr-line>Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden</addr-line>
,<country>The Netherlands</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Tendera, Michal" sort="Tendera, Michal" uniqKey="Tendera M" first="Michal" last="Tendera">Michal Tendera</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af8"><addr-line>3rd Division of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>Medical University of Silesia</institution>
,<addr-line>Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice</addr-line>
,<country>Poland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Fox, Kim" sort="Fox, Kim" uniqKey="Fox K" first="Kim" last="Fox">Kim Fox</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af9"><addr-line>National Heart and Lung Institute</addr-line>
,<institution>Imperial College, ICMS Royal Brompton Hospital</institution>
,<addr-line>Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP</addr-line>
,<country>UK</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Van De Werf, Frans" sort="Van De Werf, Frans" uniqKey="Van De Werf F" first="Frans" last="Van De Werf">Frans Van De Werf</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af10"><addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Gasthuisberg</institution>
,<addr-line>Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven</addr-line>
,<country>Belgium</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mundow, Ciara" sort="Mundow, Ciara" uniqKey="Mundow C" first="Ciara" last="Mundow">Ciara Mundow</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af11"><addr-line>Department of Scientific Programme Management</addr-line>
,<institution>European Society of Cardiology</institution>
,<addr-line>2035 Route des Colles – Les Templiers, Sofia Antipolis</addr-line>
,<country>France</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Luscher, Thomas F" sort="Luscher, Thomas F" uniqKey="Luscher T" first="Thomas F." last="Lüscher">Thomas F. Lüscher</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af5"><institution>Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ruschitzka, Frank" sort="Ruschitzka, Frank" uniqKey="Ruschitzka F" first="Frank" last="Ruschitzka">Frank Ruschitzka</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Matter, Christian M" sort="Matter, Christian M" uniqKey="Matter C" first="Christian M." last="Matter">Christian M. Matter</name>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2"><addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><nlm:aff id="af5"><institution>Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</nlm:aff>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j">European Heart Journal</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0195-668X</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1522-9645</idno>
<imprint><date when="2012">2012</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass></textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><sec><title>Aims</title>
<p>Through a 4-year follow-up of the abstracts submitted to the European Society of
Cardiology Congress in 2006, we aimed at identifying factors predicting high-quality
research, appraising the quality of the peer review and editorial processes, and thereby
revealing potential ways to improve future research, peer review, and editorial
work.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Methods and results</title>
<p>All abstracts submitted in 2006 were assessed for acceptance, presentation format, and
average reviewer rating. Accepted and rejected studies were followed for 4 years.
Multivariate regression analyses of a representative selection of 10% of all
abstracts (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002) were performed to identify factors
predicting acceptance, subsequent publication, and citation. A total of 10 020 abstracts
were submitted, 3104 (31%) were accepted for poster, and 701 (7%) for oral
presentation. At Congress level, basic research, a patient number ≥ 100, and
prospective study design were identified as independent predictors of acceptance. These
factors differed from those predicting full-text publication, which included academic
affiliation. The single parameter predicting frequent citation was study design with
randomized controlled trials reaching the highest citation rates. The publication rate
of accepted studies was 38%, whereas only 24% of rejected studies were
published. Among published studies, those accepted at the Congress received higher
citation rates than rejected ones.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Conclusions</title>
<p>Research of high quality was determined by study design and largely identified at
Congress level through blinded peer review. The scientometric follow-up revealed a
marked disparity between predictors of full-text publication and those predicting
citation or acceptance at the Congress.</p>
</sec>
</div>
</front>
<back><div1 type="bibliography"><listBibl><biblStruct></biblStruct>
<biblStruct></biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Fisher, M" uniqKey="Fisher M">M Fisher</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Friedman, Sb" uniqKey="Friedman S">SB Friedman</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Strauss, B" uniqKey="Strauss B">B Strauss</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Garfunkel, Jm" uniqKey="Garfunkel J">JM Garfunkel</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ulshen, Mh" uniqKey="Ulshen M">MH Ulshen</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Hamrick, Hj" uniqKey="Hamrick H">HJ Hamrick</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Lawson, Ee" uniqKey="Lawson E">EE Lawson</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Olson, Cm" uniqKey="Olson C">CM Olson</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Rennie, D" uniqKey="Rennie D">D Rennie</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Cook, D" uniqKey="Cook D">D Cook</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Dickersin, K" uniqKey="Dickersin K">K Dickersin</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Flanagin, A" uniqKey="Flanagin A">A Flanagin</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Hogan, Jw" uniqKey="Hogan J">JW Hogan</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Zhu, Q" uniqKey="Zhu Q">Q Zhu</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Reiling, J" uniqKey="Reiling J">J Reiling</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Pace, B" uniqKey="Pace B">B Pace</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Callaham, Ml" uniqKey="Callaham M">ML Callaham</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Wears, Rl" uniqKey="Wears R">RL Wears</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Weber, Ej" uniqKey="Weber E">EJ Weber</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Barton, C" uniqKey="Barton C">C Barton</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Young, G" uniqKey="Young G">G Young</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Krzyzanowska, Mk" uniqKey="Krzyzanowska M">MK Krzyzanowska</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Pintilie, M" uniqKey="Pintilie M">M Pintilie</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Tannock, If" uniqKey="Tannock I">IF Tannock</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Raptis, Da" uniqKey="Raptis D">DA Raptis</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Oberkofler, Ce" uniqKey="Oberkofler C">CE Oberkofler</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gouma, D" uniqKey="Gouma D">D Gouma</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Garden, Oj" uniqKey="Garden O">OJ Garden</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Bismuth, H" uniqKey="Bismuth H">H Bismuth</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Lerut, T" uniqKey="Lerut T">T Lerut</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Clavien, Pa" uniqKey="Clavien P">PA Clavien</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Scherer, Rw" uniqKey="Scherer R">RW Scherer</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Dickersin, K" uniqKey="Dickersin K">K Dickersin</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Langenberg, P" uniqKey="Langenberg P">P Langenberg</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Toma, M" uniqKey="Toma M">M Toma</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mcalister, Fa" uniqKey="Mcalister F">FA McAlister</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Bialy, L" uniqKey="Bialy L">L Bialy</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Adams, D" uniqKey="Adams D">D Adams</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Vandermeer, B" uniqKey="Vandermeer B">B Vandermeer</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Armstrong, Pw" uniqKey="Armstrong P">PW Armstrong</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ross, Js" uniqKey="Ross J">JS Ross</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gross, Cp" uniqKey="Gross C">CP Gross</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Desai, Mm" uniqKey="Desai M">MM Desai</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Hong, Y" uniqKey="Hong Y">Y Hong</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Grant, Ao" uniqKey="Grant A">AO Grant</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Daniels, Sr" uniqKey="Daniels S">SR Daniels</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Hachinski, Vc" uniqKey="Hachinski V">VC Hachinski</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gibbons, Rj" uniqKey="Gibbons R">RJ Gibbons</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gardner, Tj" uniqKey="Gardner T">TJ Gardner</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Krumholz, Hm" uniqKey="Krumholz H">HM Krumholz</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Bartlett, Je" uniqKey="Bartlett J">JE Bartlett</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Kotrlik, Jw" uniqKey="Kotrlik J">JW Kotrlik</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Higgins, Cc" uniqKey="Higgins C">CC Higgins</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Reuters, T" uniqKey="Reuters T">T Reuters</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Von Elm, E" uniqKey="Von Elm E">E von Elm</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Costanza, Mc" uniqKey="Costanza M">MC Costanza</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Walder, B" uniqKey="Walder B">B Walder</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Tramer, Mr" uniqKey="Tramer M">MR Tramer</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Glasziou, P" uniqKey="Glasziou P">P Glasziou</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Vandenbroucke, Jp" uniqKey="Vandenbroucke J">JP Vandenbroucke</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Chalmers, I" uniqKey="Chalmers I">I Chalmers</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct></biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Pendlebury, Da" uniqKey="Pendlebury D">DA Pendlebury</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kassirer, Jp" uniqKey="Kassirer J">JP Kassirer</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Campion, Ew" uniqKey="Campion E">EW Campion</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Bailar, Jc" uniqKey="Bailar J">JC Bailar</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Patterson, K" uniqKey="Patterson K">K Patterson</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Abby, M" uniqKey="Abby M">M Abby</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Massey, Md" uniqKey="Massey M">MD Massey</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Galandiuk, S" uniqKey="Galandiuk S">S Galandiuk</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Polk, Hc" uniqKey="Polk H">HC Polk</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Relman, As" uniqKey="Relman A">AS Relman</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Angell, M" uniqKey="Angell M">M Angell</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Link, Am" uniqKey="Link A">AM Link</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Laband, Dn" uniqKey="Laband D">DN Laband</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Piette, Mj" uniqKey="Piette M">MJ Piette</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ash, As" uniqKey="Ash A">AS Ash</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Carr, Pl" uniqKey="Carr P">PL Carr</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Goldstein, R" uniqKey="Goldstein R">R Goldstein</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Friedman, Rh" uniqKey="Friedman R">RH Friedman</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Tesch, Bj" uniqKey="Tesch B">BJ Tesch</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Wood, Hm" uniqKey="Wood H">HM Wood</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Helwig, Al" uniqKey="Helwig A">AL Helwig</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Nattinger, Ab" uniqKey="Nattinger A">AB Nattinger</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaplan, Sh" uniqKey="Kaplan S">SH Kaplan</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Sullivan, Lm" uniqKey="Sullivan L">LM Sullivan</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Dukes, Ka" uniqKey="Dukes K">KA Dukes</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Phillips, Cf" uniqKey="Phillips C">CF Phillips</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Kelch, Rp" uniqKey="Kelch R">RP Kelch</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Schaller, Jg" uniqKey="Schaller J">JG Schaller</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Levinson, W" uniqKey="Levinson W">W Levinson</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Lurie, N" uniqKey="Lurie N">N Lurie</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Garfield, E" uniqKey="Garfield E">E Garfield</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Garfield, E" uniqKey="Garfield E">E Garfield</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Haeffner Cavaillon, N" uniqKey="Haeffner Cavaillon N">N Haeffner-Cavaillon</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Graillot Gak, C" uniqKey="Graillot Gak C">C Graillot-Gak</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
<biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Moed, Hf" uniqKey="Moed H">HF Moed</name>
</author>
</analytic>
</biblStruct>
</listBibl>
</div1>
</back>
</TEI>
<pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-dir>properties open_access</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Eur Heart J</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">Eur. Heart J</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">eurheartj</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">ehj</journal-id>
<journal-title-group><journal-title>European Heart Journal</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0195-668X</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">1522-9645</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">22669850</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="pmc">3530902</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">ehs113</article-id>
<article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Special Article</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group><article-title>From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting
publication and citation</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Winnik</surname>
<given-names>Stephan</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af1">1</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af2">2</xref>
<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1">*</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Raptis</surname>
<given-names>Dimitri A.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af3">3</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Walker</surname>
<given-names>Janina H.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af4">4</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Hasun</surname>
<given-names>Matthias</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af1">1</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Speer</surname>
<given-names>Thimotheus</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af2">2</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Clavien</surname>
<given-names>Pierre-Alain</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af3">3</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af5">5</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Komajda</surname>
<given-names>Michel</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af6">6</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Bax</surname>
<given-names>Jeroen J.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af7">7</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Tendera</surname>
<given-names>Michal</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af8">8</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Fox</surname>
<given-names>Kim</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af9">9</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Van de Werf</surname>
<given-names>Frans</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af10">10</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Mundow</surname>
<given-names>Ciara</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af11">11</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Lüscher</surname>
<given-names>Thomas F.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af1">1</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af2">2</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af5">5</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Ruschitzka</surname>
<given-names>Frank</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af2">2</xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Matter</surname>
<given-names>Christian M.</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af1">1</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af2">2</xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="af5">5</xref>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="af1"><label>1</label>
<addr-line>Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af2"><label>2</label>
<addr-line>Cardiovascular Research</addr-line>
,<institution>Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af3"><label>3</label>
<addr-line>Department of Surgery</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Rämistr. 100, CH-8091 Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af4"><label>4</label>
<addr-line>Department of Pediatrics</addr-line>
,<institution>Cantonal Hospital Muensterlingen</institution>
,<addr-line>CH-8596 Muensterlingen</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af5"><label>5</label>
<institution>Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich</institution>
,<addr-line>Zurich</addr-line>
,<country>Switzerland</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af6"><label>6</label>
<addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>University Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, Pitie Salpetriere Hospital</institution>
,<addr-line>47 Boulevard de l'Hopital, 75013 Paris</addr-line>
,<country>France</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af7"><label>7</label>
<addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>Leiden University Medical Center</institution>
,<addr-line>Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden</addr-line>
,<country>The Netherlands</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af8"><label>8</label>
<addr-line>3rd Division of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>Medical University of Silesia</institution>
,<addr-line>Poniatowskiego 15, 40-055 Katowice</addr-line>
,<country>Poland</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af9"><label>9</label>
<addr-line>National Heart and Lung Institute</addr-line>
,<institution>Imperial College, ICMS Royal Brompton Hospital</institution>
,<addr-line>Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP</addr-line>
,<country>UK</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af10"><label>10</label>
<addr-line>Department of Cardiology</addr-line>
,<institution>University Hospital Gasthuisberg</institution>
,<addr-line>Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven</addr-line>
,<country>Belgium</country>
</aff>
<aff id="af11"><label>11</label>
<addr-line>Department of Scientific Programme Management</addr-line>
,<institution>European Society of Cardiology</institution>
,<addr-line>2035 Route des Colles – Les Templiers, Sofia Antipolis</addr-line>
,<country>France</country>
</aff>
<author-notes><corresp id="cor1"><label>*</label>
Corresponding author. Tel: +41 44 635 50
97, Fax: +41 44 635 68 27, Email:
<email>stephan.winnik@access.uzh.ch</email>
</corresp>
<fn><p><bold>This paper was guest edited by Prof. Dr Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, Assistant
Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, USA</bold>
</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>12</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>5</day>
<month>6</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="pmc-release"><day>5</day>
<month>6</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<pmc-comment> PMC Release delay is 0 months and 0 days and was based on the
. </pmc-comment>
<volume>33</volume>
<issue>24</issue>
<fpage>3034</fpage>
<lpage>3045</lpage>
<history><date date-type="received"><day>3</day>
<month>11</month>
<year>2011</year>
</date>
<date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21</day>
<month>3</month>
<year>2012</year>
</date>
<date date-type="accepted"><day>13</day>
<month>4</month>
<year>2012</year>
</date>
</history>
<permissions><copyright-statement>Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights
reserved. © The Author 2012.</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2012</copyright-year>
<license license-type="creative-commons" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/"><license-p><pmc-comment>CREATIVE COMMONS</pmc-comment>
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution Non-Commercial License (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/</ext-link>
),
which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="ehs113.pdf"></self-uri>
<abstract><sec><title>Aims</title>
<p>Through a 4-year follow-up of the abstracts submitted to the European Society of
Cardiology Congress in 2006, we aimed at identifying factors predicting high-quality
research, appraising the quality of the peer review and editorial processes, and thereby
revealing potential ways to improve future research, peer review, and editorial
work.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Methods and results</title>
<p>All abstracts submitted in 2006 were assessed for acceptance, presentation format, and
average reviewer rating. Accepted and rejected studies were followed for 4 years.
Multivariate regression analyses of a representative selection of 10% of all
abstracts (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002) were performed to identify factors
predicting acceptance, subsequent publication, and citation. A total of 10 020 abstracts
were submitted, 3104 (31%) were accepted for poster, and 701 (7%) for oral
presentation. At Congress level, basic research, a patient number ≥ 100, and
prospective study design were identified as independent predictors of acceptance. These
factors differed from those predicting full-text publication, which included academic
affiliation. The single parameter predicting frequent citation was study design with
randomized controlled trials reaching the highest citation rates. The publication rate
of accepted studies was 38%, whereas only 24% of rejected studies were
published. Among published studies, those accepted at the Congress received higher
citation rates than rejected ones.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Conclusions</title>
<p>Research of high quality was determined by study design and largely identified at
Congress level through blinded peer review. The scientometric follow-up revealed a
marked disparity between predictors of full-text publication and those predicting
citation or acceptance at the Congress.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>
<kwd-group><kwd>Scientific quality</kwd>
<kwd>Peer review</kwd>
<kwd>Publication</kwd>
<kwd>Impact</kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body><p><related-article id="d34e413" related-article-type="article-reference" ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="10.1093/eurheartj/ehs160"><bold>See page 3002 for the editorial comment on this article
(doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs160)</bold>
</related-article>
</p>
<sec id="s1"><title>Introduction</title>
<p>The Congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) is one of the largest
international scientific meetings worldwide, yearly attracting approximately 30 000 health
care professionals from more than 60 countries.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C1">1</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C2">2</xref>
</sup>
Scientific meetings like
this provide an excellent forum for distribution and discussion of the most recent
scientific findings. However, the factors that determine acceptance at a scientific meeting,
and whether these factors also <italic>predict</italic>
subsequent full-text publication are
largely unknown. Moreover, a <italic>validation</italic>
of the parameters that predict
acceptance at a scientific meeting or acceptance for full-text publication with respect to
their later impact has not been performed.</p>
<p>Several studies have investigated distinct aspects such as positive outcome- or
institutional bias associated with the acceptance at scientific meetings or publication in
peer review journals.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C3">3</xref>
–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C6">6</xref>
</sup>
Few studies have assessed the publication
fate of abstracts submitted to scientific meetings.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C7">7</xref>
–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C9">9</xref>
</sup>
In the field of
cardiology, Toma <italic>et al</italic>
.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C10">10</xref>
</sup>
specifically investigated the fate of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
presented at the scientific meetings of the American College of Cardiology between 1999 and
2002. Ross <italic>et al</italic>
. evaluated the effects of blinded peer review for
abstracts submitted to the Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association from 2000
to 2004.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C10">10</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C11">11</xref>
</sup>
To date, no study has followed the same cohort of
abstracts from their submission to a scientific meeting over their full-text publication up
to their subsequent impact after publication. Without an external and neutral surrogate for
scientific quality such as citation analysis, earlier studies could not appraise whether the
observed effects affected later scientific impact.</p>
<p>Our objective was to identify distinct factors predicting acceptance at an international
scientific meeting in the field of cardiology as well as parameters predicting subsequent
full-text publication and citation. Beyond <italic>prediction</italic>
at each of these
levels, we aimed to <italic>validate</italic>
the parameters predicting acceptance at
Congress level or publication with those parameters predicting subsequent scientific impact,
thereby appraising the quality of the peer review and editorial processes involved at each
stage.</p>
<p>To accomplish these goals, we assessed all 10 020 abstracts submitted to the Congress of
the ESC in 2006 (i.e. joint meeting of the ESC and the World Heart Foundation) and followed
a representative sample of 10% (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002 abstracts) of both
accepted and rejected abstracts over a period of 4 years for full-text publication and
subsequent 2-year citations as a surrogate for scientific impact.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="methods" id="s2"><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="s2a"><title>Study design and categorization of abstracts</title>
<p>All 10 020 abstracts submitted to the ESC congress in 2006 were entered into a database
and assessed for acceptance, presentation format (oral vs. poster presentation), and the
average reviewer rating. For a precise assessment and scientometric follow-up, a
computer-assisted random selection of 10% (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002, margin
of error = 0.01)<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C12">12</xref>
</sup>
of all
abstracts submitted was assessed in detail according to a set of pre-specified variables.
These variables were origin and type (clinical vs. basic) of research, origin and type
(university-affiliated vs. not university-affiliated) of institution, study design (RCTs
vs. prospective non-randomized trials vs. retrospective studies vs. systematic reviews vs.
meta-analyses), the number of patients enrolled in clinical studies, the study field of
clinical research, and the gender of first and last authors. The reliability of the
computer-assisted representative random selection was confirmed by comparing the
distribution of variables common to both the original sample of all 10 020 abstracts and
the randomly selected sample of 1002 abstracts; these common variables were acceptance at
the Congress (accepted vs. rejected), presentation format, and average reviewer rating. No
differences were observed (see <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S4</italic>
</ext-link>
). Gender of first
and last authors was assessed using a standardized algorithm based on the analysis of
their first and surnames in conjunction with their country of origin. In specific cases,
this approach was supplemented using online searches for photographs associated with their
home institution when necessary and available. This algorithm is described in detail in
the <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">online supplementary material</ext-link>
and was developed <italic>a priori</italic>
.
Given the need to use this empirical approach, however, the analyses that included gender
should be considered exploratory.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s2b"><title>Scientometric follow-up for publication and citation</title>
<p>The representative random selection of all abstracts submitted (including both accepted
and rejected abstracts) was followed for the time point and journal of publication and for
the number of subsequent 2-year citations, beginning from the time of publication.
Abstracts were followed for 4 years. The impact factor of the journal of publication was
assessed for the year of publication. To identify whether an abstract had been published,
the following algorithm was used: first, the full abstract title was entered as search
term in PubMed<sup>®</sup>
. If no publication was identified, a shortened version
of the abstract title (keywords only, no adjectives) was entered. If still no publication
was identified, the full list of authors was entered in PubMed<sup>®</sup>
, which,
in case of no match, was followed by the names of only the first and last authors. If
again no publication was identified, the same algorithm was repeated first in Google
Scholar, then in Google, each indexing increasing amounts of contents. Thus, articles
published in journals not indexed in Pubmed<sup>®</sup>
were identified. The
Cochrane library was searched for abstracts of systematic reviews. To validate that
identified articles and the respective abstracts matched, the following parameters were
compared for every full-text article that was identified: primary endpoint(s), the number
and size of the study groups, and the conclusions. Articles assessing the same endpoints
in the same number of study groups of the same or slightly increased sizes, leading to the
same conclusions, and published by the same last authors compared with the respective
abstract were considered ‘published’. The number of 2-year citations of
original articles (beginning from the time of publication) was determined using the
citation indexing and search service of the ISI (Institute of Scientific Information) Web
of Science (Thomson Reuters).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C13">13</xref>
</sup>
Data were collected by four independent reviewers (S.W., D.A.R., J.H.W., M.H.) in January
and February 2011, and updated in December 2011 for completion of the follow-up of 2-year
citations. In a pilot study, 3% of the study samples (<italic>n</italic>
=
30) were assessed independently by each of the four reviewers to address inter observer
variances. Thereafter, one out of the four reviewers assessed each of the 1002 abstracts.
The cut-off for ‘high’ 2-year citation rates was set to 10 or more
(≥85th percentile of all published studies) in order to identify the top 15%
of published articles. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were
performed to evaluate the predictive value of average reviewer ratings for frequent 2-year
citation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s2c"><title>Regression analyses</title>
<p>Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed to
identify factors predicting acceptance at Congress level, as well as subsequent
publication and citation frequency. Multivariable regression analyses were run using
backward conditional variable exclusion and list-wise case exclusion. The threshold for
entry was 0.05 and for exclusion 0.10.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s2d"><title>Statistical analyses</title>
<p>Metric variables were assessed for distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
and compared by the Mann–Whitney <italic>U</italic>
, one-way ANOVA, and
Kruskal–Wallis <italic>H</italic>
-tests where appropriate. Significance levels were
adjusted for multiple comparisons using conservative Bonferroni's correction where
indicated. Proportional differences derived from categorical data were compared using the
Fisher exact or χ<sup>2</sup>
tests where appropriate and presented as odds ratio
and 95% confidence interval. <italic>P</italic>
-values were two-sided and
considered statistically significant for <italic>P</italic>
< 0.05, if not indicated
differently (multiple comparisons). Statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS
Statistics Version 19.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="results" id="s3"><title>Results</title>
<sec id="s3a"><title>From abstract at the ESC congress to publication</title>
<p>The 10 020 abstracts submitted to the ESC congress in 2006 from 63 different countries of
all five continents gave rise to over 2900 publications and over 32 000 citations
(<italic>Figures <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F1">1</xref>
</italic>
and
<italic><xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F2">2</xref>
</italic>
, <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S2</italic>
</ext-link>
). Of all abstracts
submitted 90% were clinical studies and 10% were basic research.
Nearly one-fifth of the research submitted had been performed in institutions not
affiliated to universities (<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB1">1</xref>
</italic>
). Half of the clinical studies submitted were retrospective,
35% were designed prospectively, of which 18% were RCTs
(<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB1">1</xref>
</italic>
). In a
pilot study encompassing 3% of the study sample (<italic>n</italic>
= 30),
inter-observer agreement was assessed. Fleiss’ kappa values for categorical
variables ranged from 0.853 to 1.0, and intraclass correlation coefficients for continuous
variables from 0.996 to 1.0 (see <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S5</italic>
</ext-link>
). <table-wrap id="EHS113TB1" position="float"><label>Table 1</label>
<caption><p>Factors predicting acceptance at the ESC Congress</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="(" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="(" span="1"></col>
<col align="left" span="1"></col>
<col align="left" span="1"></col>
</colgroup>
<thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Parameters</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No. of abstracts submitted [% total
(<italic>n</italic>
)]</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Acceptance rate [% total (<italic>n</italic>
)]</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Univariate reg. OR, 95% CI (<italic>P</italic>
)</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Multivatiate reg. OR, 95% CI (<italic>P</italic>
)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Overall rates</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">100.0 (1002)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">37.5 (376)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Type of research</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Clinical</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">89.7 (899)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">36.8 (331)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Basic</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.3 (103)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">43.7 (45)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.33, 0.88–2.01 (0.174)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>2.24, 1.39–3.59 (0.001)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="5" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Type of institution</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Not university-affiliated</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">19.2 (192)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">34.9 (67)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> University-affiliated</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">80.8 (810)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">38.1 (309)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.51, 0.15–1.60 (0.403)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="5" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Study design (clinical)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>(0.018)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>(0.023)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Restrospective</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">49.3 (494)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">32.4 (160)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Prospective non-RCT</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">28.9 (290)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">42.8 (124)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.90,1.16–2.10 (0.016)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.67, 1.22–2.29 (0.002)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> RCT</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.5 (65)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">47.7 (31)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.56, 1.13–2.21 (0.004)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.91, 1.11–3.28 (0.020)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Meta-Analysis</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.6 (6)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">50.0 (3)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.90, 0.42–10.46 (0.370)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (1.000)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Systematic Review</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.2 (2)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (0)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (1.000)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (1.000)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Other</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.2 (42)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">31.0 (13)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="5" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of patients (clinical)<sup>a</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> <100</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">43.4 (435)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">30.3 (132)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> ≥100</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">41.7 (418)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">45.7 (191)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.93, 1.46–2.56 (<0.001)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>2.07, 1.54–2.77 (<0.001)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="5" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Study field (clinical)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.373)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Cardiac imaging, computational, acute cardiac care</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.3 (103)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">44.7 (46)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Rhythmology</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.7 (127)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">31.5 (40)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.57, 0.34–0.96 (0.034)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Heart failure, left ventricular function, valvular disease, pulmonary
circulation</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.2 (152)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">36.8 (56)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.71, 0.44–1.16 (0.173)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Coronary artery disease, ischaemia</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.2 (132)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">31.8 (42)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.61, 0.37–1.01 (0.055)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Interventional cardiology, peripheral circulation, stroke</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.4 (94)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">39.4 (37)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.79, 0.47–1.36 (0.390)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Exercise, prevention, epidemiology, pharmacology, nursing</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.6 (146)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">36.3 (53)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.68, 0.41–1.12 (0.130)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Hypertension, myocardial and pericardial disease, cardiovascular
surgery</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.5 (95)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">38.9 (37)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.83, 0.48–1.42 (0.490)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Other</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.0 (50)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40.0 (20)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="5" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Gender first author<sup>b</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Male</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">72.2 (723)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">39.8 (288)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">26.0 (261)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">33.7 (88)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.77, 0.57–1.03 (0.082)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.73, 0.54–1.00 (0.051)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="5" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Gender last author<sup>c</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Male</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">84.0 (842)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">38.2 (322)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.1 (131)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">38.9 (51)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.03, 0.71–1.50 (0.88)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot><fn><p>OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; RCT, randomized controlled trial;
ref., reference variable for odds ratio calculation; n.a., not applicable.
Analyses performed on representative 10% selection (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002), margin of error <0.01. Backward conditional variable
exclusion, c-statistic = 0.620.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p>Bold value indicates statistically significant findings.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>a</sup>
In 46 clinical studies, no information on the number of patients
was provided.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>b</sup>
In 18 studies, no gender for the first author could be
identified.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>c</sup>
In 29 studies, no gender for the last author could be
identified.</p>
</fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
<fig id="EHS113F1" position="float"><label>Figure 1</label>
<caption><p>Fate of studies submitted to the ESC Congress 2006. Overview of submission,
acceptance at Congress level, and follow-up for full-text publication, and citation
within 2 years following publication. All abstracts were characterized according to
a set of pre-specified parameters. Association of these factors with the acceptance
at Congress level, with full-text publication, and subsequent citation was assessed
by univariable and mutlivariable regression analyses. Percentages refer to the
respective preceding level (<italic>n</italic>
). (<italic>n</italic>
* refers
to the representative random selection of 10% (1002) of all abstracts
submitted (10 020), Ø published, not published; IF, impact
factor).</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="ehs11301"></graphic>
</fig>
<fig id="EHS113F2" position="float"><label>Figure 2</label>
<caption><p>Origin of research submitted to the ESC Congress 2006. A total of 10 020
abstracts were submitted to the scientific sessions of the ESC 2006. Based on the
assessment of a representative subsample of 10% (<italic>n</italic>
=
1002) submitted studies originated from 63 different countries of all five
continents. About one-third of all studies were submitted from the American
continent, 43% from Western Europe, and 14% from Eastern Europe and
Russia. Less than 10% of studies originated from Africa and
Asia/Oceania.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="ehs11302"></graphic>
</fig>
</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s3b"><title>Peer review and editorial process at the ESC Congress 2006</title>
<p>All abstracts submitted were reviewed by three to eight independent reviewers, who
allotted scores from 1 to 10 for each abstract. Editorial decisions were based on average
reviewer ratings. Reviewer ratings showed a central tendency without being normally
distributed (see <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Figure S1</italic>
</ext-link>
). Abstracts
accepted had received significantly higher scores than those rejected
(<italic>P</italic>
< 0.001). Among accepted studies, those accepted for oral
presentation had been rated significantly better than those accepted for poster
presentation (<italic>P</italic>
< 0.001), indicating a good coherency of reviewer
assessment and editorial decisions. A cut-off for acceptance was identified at an average
reviewer rating of 6.5 (<italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F3">3</xref>
A</italic>
). The predictive value of expert reviewer assessment for frequent
citation (defined as 10 or more 2-year citations) was 70% (AUC = 0.694,
<italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F3">3</xref>
B</italic>
). The
best cut-off for frequent citation was identified to be an average reviewer rating of
greater than 7 (AUC = 0.660, <italic>P</italic>
< 0.001,
<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB2">2</xref>
</italic>
).
Concomitantly, studies accepted at the ESC Congress received significantly more 2-year
citations than rejected ones (<italic>P</italic>
= 0.004 for oral presentations,
<italic>P</italic>
= 0.008 for poster presentations, <italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F3">3</xref>
D</italic>
). <table-wrap id="EHS113TB2" position="float"><label>Table 2</label>
<caption><p>Determination of the best cut-off of the average reviewer rating for
frequent citation</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="(" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="(" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="(" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="(" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="." span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="(" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="." span="1"></col>
</colgroup>
<thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1"></th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Frequency [<italic>n</italic>
(%submitted)]</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Accepted at congress [<italic>n</italic>
(% within
rating)]</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Published [<italic>n</italic>
(% within rating)]</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">≥10 two year cit. [<italic>n</italic>
(% within
rating)]</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic>
-value (Fisher's exact)</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">OR (95% CI)</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">AUC (ROC analyses)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Av. Rev. Rating > 6</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">555 (55.4)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">375 (67.6)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">199 (35.9)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">36 (6.5)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.036</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.347 (1.04–5.27)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.584</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Av. Rev. Rating > 6.5</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">394 (39.3)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">358 (90.9)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">146 (37.1)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">32 (8.1)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.002</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.135 (1.53–6.37)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.634</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Av. Rev. Rating > 7</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">213 (21.3)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">210 (98.6)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">81 (38.0)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24 (11.3)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold><0.001</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>4.021 (2.07–7.80)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.660</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Av. Rev. Rating > 7.5</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">111 (11.1)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">110 (99.1)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">47 (42.3)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15 (13.5)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.001</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.491 (1.69–7.21)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.609</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Av. Rev. Rating > 8</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">33 (3.3)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">32 (97.0)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15 (45.5)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6 (18.2)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.015</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.193 (1.41–12.44)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.553</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Av. Rev. Rating > 8.5</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12 (1.2)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11 (91.7)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5 (41.7)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4 (33.3)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.002</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24.700 (2.69–226.65)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.543</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Av. Rev. Rating > 9</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Not given</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">–</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot><fn><p><italic>P</italic>
-values, odds ratios (OR), confidence intervals (CI) and area
under the curve (AUC) values refer to the categorigal variable of ‘≥
10 two-year citations’. Random 10% selection (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002), margin of error <0.01.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p>Bold value indicates statistically most significant finding in conjunction with
the largest AUC.</p>
</fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
<fig id="EHS113F3" position="float"><label>Figure 3</label>
<caption><p>Peer review and editorial process of the ESC Congress 2006. All abstracts
submitted were peer-reviewed in a blinded fashion by three to eight expert
reviewers, and graded on a scale from 1 to 10. (<italic>A</italic>
) Reviewer ratings
and editorial decisions. Accepted studies had received significantly higher ratings
than rejected studies; studies for oral presentation had been ranked significantly
higher than those for poster presentations. The cut-off for acceptance at 6.5 was
calculated using the Yuden's index (sensitivity 0.97, specificity 0.92).
(<italic>B</italic>
) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses after
the scientometric follow-up of a representative subsample of 10% of all
abstracts submitted (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002) revealed a predictive value of
average reviewer ratings of 69.4%. (<italic>C</italic>
) Spearman's
correlation of average reviewer ratings with acceptance at the Congress, subsequent
full-text-publication and citation rates uncovered a significant positive
correlation in all three cases. (<italic>D</italic>
) Comparison of the numbers of
2-year citations of both accepted and rejected, subsequently published studies.
Analyses revealed that rejected and subsequently published studies were cited
significantly less frequently compared with accepted and subsequently published
studies; citation frequencies between different presentation formats did not differ.
AUC, area under the curve, significance level (<italic>P</italic>
< 0.017)
adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni's correction,
interquartile ranges, whiskers indicate minima and maxima.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="ehs11303"></graphic>
</fig>
</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s3c"><title>Factors predicting acceptance at the ESC Congress</title>
<p>Thirty-eight per cent of all submitted studies were accepted, and only 7% of all
submitted abstracts (i.e. 18.4% of all accepted abstracts) were accepted for oral
presentation (<italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F1">1</xref>
</italic>
).</p>
<p>In univariable analyses, two factors were positively associated with acceptance at
Congress level: study design (<italic>P</italic>
= 0.018) and a patient number of
100 or more (OR = 1.93, <italic>P</italic>
< 0.001). Within study design,
specifically prospective non-randomized study design (OR = 1.90,
<italic>P</italic>
= 0.016) and randomized controlled trial design (OR 1.56,
<italic>P</italic>
= 0.004) were identified. The only factor not favouring
acceptance in univariable analysis was research conducted in the field of rhythmology (OR
= 0.57, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.034) with an acceptance rate of 33%
compared with 46% of other abstracts (<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB1">1</xref>
</italic>
).</p>
<p>When adjusting for all factors assessed, the number of patients enrolled showed the
strongest association with acceptance (adjusted OR = 2.07,
<italic>P</italic>
< 0.001), followed by basic as opposed to clinical research
(adjusted OR = 2.24, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.001) with an acceptance rate of
44 vs. 37%, and study design (<italic>P</italic>
= 0.023). Within study
design, prospective data collections (i.e. prospective cohort studies and non-randomized
intervention trials) (adjusted OR = 1.67, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.002) and
RCTs (adjusted OR = 1.91, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.020) favoured acceptance
(<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB1">1</xref>
</italic>
).
Interestingly, none of the aspects assessed was associated with oral or poster
presentation among all accepted abstracts (see <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S1</italic>
</ext-link>
).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s3d"><title>Factors predicting full-text publication</title>
<p>Of all accepted studies, 38% were subsequently published, whereas only 24%
of rejected studies were published (<italic>P</italic>
< 0.001). The publication
rate of studies accepted for oral presentation (37%) did not differ from the
publication rate of studies accepted for poster presentation (39%,
<italic>P</italic>
= 0.79). However, significantly more of those studies that had
been accepted for oral presentation were subsequently published in high impact factor
journals (30%, IF ≥ 10) compared with studies that had been accepted for
poster presentation (10%, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.009) or rejected studies
(4%, <italic>P</italic>
< 0.001) (<italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F1">1</xref>
</italic>
).</p>
<p>Univariable analyses revealed a significant advantage for institutions affiliated with
universities to publish their research (publication rate 31%) compared with
non-university-affiliated institutions (publication rate = 22%,
<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB3">3</xref>
</italic>
). With a
publication rate of 41%, basic research showed the strongest association with
publication (OR = 1.72, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.012), followed by study design
in clinical research (<italic>P</italic>
= 0.014) and the affiliation to a
university (OR = 1.53, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.025). Notably, neither
prospective nor randomized controlled study design, but meta-analyses contributed to the
significant association of study design with publication in univariable analysis (OR
= 5.97, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.041). However, the small number of
meta-analyses in the studied cohort does not allow a solid statement. <table-wrap id="EHS113TB3" position="float"><label>Table 3</label>
<caption><p>Factors predicting publication</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="." span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="." span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="." span="1"></col>
<col align="left" span="1"></col>
<col align="left" span="1"></col>
</colgroup>
<thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Parameters</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No. of studies published</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">No. of studies not published</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Publication Rate (% submitted<sup>a</sup>
)</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Univ. reg. OR, 95% CI (<italic>P</italic>
)</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Multiv. reg. OR, 95% CI (<italic>P</italic>
)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Type of research</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Clinical</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">251</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">648</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27.9</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Basic</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">42</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">61</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40.8</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.72, 1.13–2.61 (0.012)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>2.11, 1.34–3.34 (0.001)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Type of institution</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Not university-affiliated</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">43</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">149</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">22.4</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> University-affiliated</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">250</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">560</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">30.9</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.53, 1.06–2.22 (0.025)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.62, 1.09–2.43 (0.018)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Study design (clinical)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>(0.014)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.279)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Restrospective</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">124</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">370</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">25.1</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Prospective non-RCT</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">90</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">200</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">31.0</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.32, 0.96–1.82 (0.090)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>1.44, 1.03–2.02 (0.032)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> RCT</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">22</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">43</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">33.8</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.53, 0.88–2.65 (0.133)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.48, 0.84–2.61 (0.181)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Meta-Analysis</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">66.7</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>5.97, 1.08–32.98 (0.041)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (1.000)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Systematic Review</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (1.000)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (1.000)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Other</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">31</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">26.2</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of patients (clin.)<sup>b</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> <100</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">120</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">318</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27.4</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> ≥100</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">117</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">298</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">28.2</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.08, 0.80–1.46 (0.068)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Study field (clinical)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.228)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Cardiac imaging, computational, acute cardiac care</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">32</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">71</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">31.1</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Rhythmology</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">30</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">97</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">23.6</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.71, 0.41–1.25 (0.236)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Heart failure, left ventricular function, valvular disease, pulmonary
circulation</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">112</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">26.3</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.86, 0.51–1.47 (0.588)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Coronary artery disease, ischaemia</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">39</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">93</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">29.5</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.94, 0.55–1.61 (0.821)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Interventional cardiology, peripheral circulation, stroke</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">67</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">28.7</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.86, 0.47–1.55 (0.610)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Exercise, prevention, epidemiology, pharmacology, nursing</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">36</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">110</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24.7</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.76, 0.44–1.32 (0.328)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Hypertension, myocardial and pericardial disease, cardiovascular
surgery</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">29</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">66</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">30.5</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.12, 0.68–2.12 (0.533)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Other</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">32</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">36.0</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Gender first author<sup>c</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Male</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">217</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">506</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">30.0</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">71</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">190</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27.2</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.88, 0.63–1.18 (0.352)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.94, 0.67–1.32 (0.723)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Gender last author<sup>d</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Male</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">259</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">583</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">30.8</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">25</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">106</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">19.1</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.54, 0.34–0.85 (0.008)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>0.52, 0.32–0.85 (0.010)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot><fn><p>OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; RCT, randomized controlled trial;
ref., reference variable for odds ratio calculation; n.a., not applicable.
Analyses performed on representative 10% selection (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002), margin of error < 0.01. Backward conditional variable
exclusion, <italic>c</italic>
-statistic = 0.757.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p>Bold value indicates statistically significant findings.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>a</sup>
Percent submitted refers to submissions to the ESC
Congress.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>b</sup>
In 46 clinical studies, no information on the number of patients
was provided.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>c</sup>
In 18 studies, no gender for the first author could be
identified.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>d</sup>
In 29 studies, no gender for the last author could be
identified.</p>
</fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
</p>
<p>When adjusting for all factors assessed, prospective non-randomized study design
independently predicted publication (adjusted OR = 1.44, <italic>P</italic>
=
0.032). Moreover, multivariable analyses confirmed university affiliation to independently
predict publication (adjusted OR = 1.62, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.018). The
number of patients enrolled was not associated with full-text publication, while it was
with acceptance at Congress level.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s3e"><title>Factors predicting citation</title>
<p>Twenty-one per cent of all studies that had been accepted and subsequently published were
cited 10 times or more within the 2 years following publication. In contrast, only
7% of the published studies that had been rejected were cited 10 times or more in
the 2 years following publication (<italic>P</italic>
= 0.008). Citation rates
between published studies that had been accepted for oral presentation did not differ
significantly from those that had been accepted for poster presentation
(<italic>P</italic>
= 0.24). In univariable analyses, the study field
(<italic>P</italic>
= 0.028) and study design (<italic>P</italic>
= 0.001)
were associated with high citation rates (<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB4">4</xref>
</italic>
). After adjusting for the remaining factors, study
design remained the only parameter independently associated with high citation rates
(<italic>P</italic>
= 0.004). In particular, randomized controlled trial design
demonstrated a marked independent association with high citation rates (adjusted OR
= 6.82, <italic>P</italic>
< 0.001), followed by prospective non-randomized
studies (adjusted OR = 2.57, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.018). Neither academic
affiliation nor gender of first or last author, nor the number of enrolled patients
influenced citation rates (<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB4">4</xref>
</italic>
). <table-wrap id="EHS113TB4" position="float"><label>Table 4</label>
<caption><p>Factors predicting high citation rates</p>
</caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1"></col>
<col align="char" char="(" span="1"></col>
<col align="left" span="1"></col>
<col align="left" span="1"></col>
</colgroup>
<thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>Parameters</italic>
</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Articles cited 10× or more in 2 years [% of
published (<italic>n</italic>
/<italic>n</italic>
)]</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Univariate reg. OR, 95% CI (<italic>P</italic>
)</th>
<th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Multivatiate reg. OR, 95% CI (<italic>P</italic>
)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Type of research</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Clinical</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.3 (36/251)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Basic</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.9 (5/42)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.73, 0.27–1.98 (0.537)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Type of institution</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Not university-affiliated</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.0 (3/43)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> University-affiliated</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.2 (38/250)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.63, 0.77–8.90 (0.121)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Study design (clinical)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>(0.001)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>(0.004)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Restrospective</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.5 (8/124)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Prospective non-RCT</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.9 (17/90)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>3.39, 1.457.90 (0.005)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>2.57, 1.20–5.68 (0.018)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> RCT</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40.9 (9/22)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>8.77, 2.96–26.02 (<0.001)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>6.82, 2.46–21.12 (0.001)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Meta Analysis</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">50.0 (2/4)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>12.67, 1.59–100.80 (0.016)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>16.30, 1.20–281.94 (0.044)</bold>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Systematic Review</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Other</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (0/11)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of patients (clinical)<sup>a</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> <100</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.5 (15/120)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> ≥100</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.9 (21/117)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.33, 076–2.67 (0.414)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Study field (clinical)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><bold>(0.028)</bold>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(0.114)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Cardiac imaging, computational, acute cardiac care</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.7 (5/32)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Rhythmology</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.3 (4/30)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.64, 0.16–2.53 (0.528)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.59, 0.14–2.40 (0.475)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Heart failure, left ventricular function, valvular disease, pulmonary
circulation</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.5 (3/40)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.33, 0.08–1.44 (0.142)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.29, 0.06–1.31 (0.119)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Coronary artery disease, ischemia</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">30.8 (12/39)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.96, 0.66–5.84 (0.229)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.79, 0.54–5.37 (0.331)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Interventional cardiology, peripheral circulation, stroke</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">25.9 (7/27)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.86, 0.56–2.49 (0.310)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.44, 0.44–5.72 (0.582)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Exercise, prevention, epidemiology, pharmacology, nursing</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">56 (2/36)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.69, 0.19–2.49 (0.567)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.71, 0.19–2.95 (0.630)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Hypertension, myocardial and peri-cardial disease, cardiovascular
surgery</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.9 (2/29)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.42, 0.10–1.62 (0.254)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.39, 0.09–1.90 (0.230)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Other</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.6 (1/18)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">n.a.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Gender first author<sup>b</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Male</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.3 (31/217)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.3 (13/71)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.34, 0.66–2.73 (0.423)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.0 (1.00)</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="4" rowspan="1"><hr></hr>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Gender last author<sup>c</sup>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Male</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.6 (43/259)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ref.</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1"> Female</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.0 (1/25)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.22, 0.03–1.66 (0.142)</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot><fn><p>OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; RCT, randomized controlled trial;
ref., reference variable for odds ratio calculation, n.a., not applicable.
Analyses performed on representative 10% selection (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002), margin of error <0.01. Backward conditional variable
exclusion, <italic>c</italic>
-statistic = 0.570.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p>Bold value indicates statistically significant findings.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>a</sup>
In 46 clinical studies, no information on the number of patients
was provided.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>b</sup>
In 18 studies, no gender for the first author could be
identified.</p>
</fn>
<fn><p><sup>c</sup>
In 29 studies, no gender for the last author could be
identified.</p>
</fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
</p>
<p>At Congress level, editorial decisions correlated both with identified predictors of high
citation rates, i.e. study design, and with reviewer ratings (<italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F3">3</xref>
A</italic>
). Notably, odds ratios for randomized
controlled trial design differed by over three-fold between the acceptance at Congress
level and high citation rates. Along this line, there was no significant difference in the
number of 2-year citations between studies accepted for oral and those accepted for poster
presentation (<italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F3">3</xref>
D</italic>
). Over half of the submitted RCTs were rejected at the ESC congress.
However, RCTs still reached the highest acceptance rate of all factors assessed
(<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB1">1</xref>
</italic>
). Over
80% of the accepted RCTs were accepted for poster presentation (see <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S1</italic>
</ext-link>
). It is
consequently not surprising that a few of the most highly cited studies evolved from
abstracts originally accepted for poster presentation (<italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F3">3</xref>
D</italic>
).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s3f"><title>Does female gender affect scientific success?</title>
<p>As noted earlier, these analyses should be considered exploratory given that information
on gender was not directly available but had to be empirically determined through an
examination of first and last author names. Of all abstracts submitted, 26% were
conducted by female first authors (<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB1">1</xref>
</italic>
). Only 13% of senior authors were female,
suggesting that both female junior and senior scientists are markedly underrepresented in
the cardiovascular research community. Acceptance rates at Congress level did not differ
between female and male scientists (<italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB1">1</xref>
</italic>
, <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S3</italic>
</ext-link>
). Among junior
researchers, publication rates did not differ markedly between male and female colleagues
(30 vs. 27%, OR = 0.88, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.428) (see <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S3</italic>
</ext-link>
). However, the
publication rate of female senior scientists was markedly lower compared with the one of
their male coworkers (18 vs. 31%, <italic>P</italic>
= 0.004, <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S3</italic>
</ext-link>
). Concomitantly,
female senior authorship was independently negatively associated with full-text
publication in multivariable regression analysis (adjusted OR = 0.52,
<italic>P</italic>
= 0.010, <italic>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="EHS113TB3">3</xref>
</italic>
). Scientific impact, as assessed by 2-year citation
rates, did not differ between genders (see <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material online, <italic>Table S3</italic>
</ext-link>
).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="discussion" id="s4"><title>Discussion</title>
<p>In this study, we identified independent predictors of acceptance at the ESC Congress,
subsequent full-text publication and later impact through specific assessment and
scientometric follow-up of a cohort of abstracts representative for over 10 000 abstracts
submitted to an international scientific meeting (<italic>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="EHS113F4">4</xref>
</italic>
). Prospective study design determined acceptance at
Congress level, full-text publication, and subsequent impact after publication. Randomized
controlled trials attracted almost seven times more 2-year citations than other studies.
Citation-based validation of the factors predicting acceptance at the Congress level or
full-text publication reveal a potential discrimination of female senior authors at
publication level and indicate superiority of blinded over open peer review. <fig id="EHS113F4" position="float"><label>Figure 4</label>
<caption><p>Key findings: predictors of acceptance at Congress level, full-text
publication, and frequent citation, and their validation with regard to scientific
impact. We identified parameters predicting acceptance, subsequent full-text
publication, and high citation rates (≥10 two-year citations). Parameters
predicting scientific impact (+), no association with scientific impact
(−). All findings, odds ratios, and confidence intervals (CI) refer to
multivariable regression analyses based on a random 10% selection of all
abstracts submitted to the ESC Congress 2006 (<italic>n</italic>
= 1002), margin
of error < 0.01.</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="ehs11304"></graphic>
</fig>
</p>
<sec id="s4a"><title>Identification of scientific quality at an early stage</title>
<p>Presentation of abstracts at scientific meetings is an important part of the
dissemination of knowledge. However, more than half of the studies submitted to scientific
congresses are never published,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C14">14</xref>
</sup>
as is also the case for the ESC 2006. Identifying high-quality research based on distinct
aspects when grading large numbers of abstracts is a challenging task for reviewers and
editors. Reviewers and editors at the ESC Congress successfully identified science of
significant later impact, given that 29.6% of all studies accepted for oral
presentation received 10 or more 2-year citations compared with only 7.4% of
rejected studies. Based on the assessment of the abstracts alone, we identified
prospective study design, and specifically randomized controlled study design as strong
predictors of scientific impact.</p>
<p>Thus, key aspects of scientific quality are identifiable at the early stage of an
abstract, and, even though markedly less pronounced, are taken into account in the review
and editorial process of one of the largest international medical conferences.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s4b"><title>Hurdles to overcome from abstract to impact</title>
<p>In the process of medical research, different stages are passed from the formulation of a
well-substantiated hypothesis to a clearly proven and novel answer, and further to the
acceptance of the elaborated results in the scientific community. The first hurdle to
overcome is publication. Intriguingly, the factors predicting publication differed
substantially from those predicting high citation rates. In essence, the institution where
studies were conducted and the gender of the respective principal investigator predicted
publication—rather than the scientific content of a study. Such discrepancy hinders
the flow of relevant findings to the scientific community and slows clinical advancement.
Once published, the scientific community itself grades the scientific importance by either
spreading the word through citation or not. This second and final step of appreciation by
fellow scientists in the respective field was observed to depend only and substantially on
research design. Considering that in current evidence-based medicine clinical guidelines
are set forth based on the respective level of evidence,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C15">15</xref>
</sup>
which is primarily based on study design,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C16">16</xref>
</sup>
this result is encouraging. Moreover,
our findings indicate that judging scientific quality of medical research based on other
factors, such as the number of patients enrolled, the home institution, or the gender of
the performing researchers, may not be justified.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s4c"><title>Peer review and editorial decisions</title>
<p>Expert peer review is the gold standard for research evaluation when it comes to
publication in peer review journals or allocation of resources.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C17">17</xref>
</sup>
Given its importance, surprisingly little research has
been performed in this field.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C18">18</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C19">19</xref>
</sup>
Abstracts submitted to the ESC
Congress 2006 were subjected to (‘double’-) blinded peer review (neither
authors knew reviewers nor vice versa). Up to eight independent reviewers graded
scientific quality on a scale from 1 to 10, providing the basis for editorial decision.
Information on sound criteria to specifically evaluate when grading scientific quality is
scarce.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C20">20</xref>
</sup>
In this study, we
assessed putative determinants of scientific quality, and identified four aspects that
were in the focus of the peer review and editorial process of the ESC Congress 2006.
External validation through citation analyses confirmed two out of these four aspects to
be markers of scientific impact, indicating effective peer review and editorial work at
this stage. Moreover, a clear cut-off for average reviewer ratings with regard to
acceptance or rejection was identified. Along with significantly higher ratings of
abstracts accepted for oral compared with those accepted for poster presentation, these
data underscore a coherent cooperation of reviewers and editors. Scientometric follow-up
assigned peer reviewer ratings a predictive value of 70% for later scientific
impact, further supporting effective peer review and editorial work at Congress level.</p>
<p>Assessment of the predictive value of the same set of parameters for subsequent full-text
publication revealed markedly different factors. External validation through citation
analyses did <italic>not</italic>
confirm any of the identified predicting factors to be
markers of scientific impact: surprisingly, randomized controlled trials design did not
predict publication. Moreover, gender and institutional affiliation of the senior author
were related to whether or not an abstract led to a full-text publication. As neither
gender nor institutional affiliation delineate scientific quality, a potential bias during
single-blinded review cannot be excluded.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s4d"><title>Blinded peer review and scientific quality</title>
<p>Most scientific and medical journals use ‘anonymous’ or
‘single-blinded’ peer review, i.e. the authors do not know the reviewers.
However, only a minority applies ‘blinded’ or ‘double-blinded’
peer review, where neither authors know reviewers nor vice versa.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C3">3</xref>
</sup>
Different kinds of bias are recognized
as confounding factors in the effort to judge the quality of research.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C4">4</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C17">17</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C18">18</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C21">21</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C22">22</xref>
</sup>
When
the American Heart Association adopted blinded peer review for their Scientific Sessions,
Ross <italic>et al</italic>
.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C11">11</xref>
</sup>
demonstrated that blinded peer review at least partially reduced reviewer bias with regard
to prestigious institutions or author origin. However, it remained unclear whether the
reduction in bias by adopting blinded peer review would affect later scientific impact. In
the present study, separate validation of blinded peer review at Congress level and
presumably largely single-blinded peer review at publication level suggests substantial
enhancement of scientific quality by decreasing potential bias through blinded peer
review. Given these data and other reports that blinded peer review does not only reduce
bias but improve scientific quality,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C23">23</xref>
</sup>
it can be speculated that blinded peer review merits consideration on a
broader scale.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s4e"><title>Cardiovascular science and gender</title>
<p>The number of women in medical training and entry-level academic positions has
substantially increased in recent years, whereas their representation in advanced and
leading academic positions has remained comparatively low.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C24">24</xref>
–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C27">27</xref>
</sup>
One of the empirically best proven hypotheses for this disparity is that women would
publish fewer papers and consequently raise less soft money compared with their male
co-workers.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C26">26</xref>
</sup>
Among all
abstracts submitted to the ESC Congress 2006, 26% originated from female first
authors, and only 13% from senior female authors. Hence, women appear to be
underrepresented in both the entry level and advanced academic positions in cardiovascular
medicine.</p>
<p>There were no gender differences with regard to abstract acceptance in blinded peer
review, underlining the absence of qualitative differences, as supported by
others.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C25">25</xref>
</sup>
Interestingly, the
rate of full-text publication of female senior authors was significantly lower compared
with their male colleagues (19.1 vs. 30.8%). Concomitantly, senior female
authorship was identified as independent negative predictor of full-text publication in
multivariable regression analysis. The scientometric follow-up did not reveal any gender
effects, again supporting the absence of qualitative disparities. Since we did not assess
the number of submissions, but only of successful full-text publications, we cannot
exclude that female senior authors have submitted their research less frequently for
full-text publication. Female underrepresentation, and the fact that citation analyses in
this study aimed to assess whether or not a published article was among the top 15%
of published articles, limit the interpretation of female scientific performance. However,
the discrepancy between blinded peer review at the Congress level and largely open peer
review at the publication level in this regard may alert the scientific community to shed
light on a potential bias.</p>
<p>Of course, all of the above findings should be interpreted cautiously and considered
exploratory, given that information on the gender of first and last authors was not
directly available but had to be determined using a systematic approach. Given that this
approach was applied <italic>a priori</italic>
(i.e. before any of the analyses were
conducted), however, we believe it is unlikely to lead to any systematic biases and, if
anything, misclassification would result in findings shifted toward no differences. That
said, the importance of understanding the role of gender in research is critical and
certainly requires further confirmation with additional work.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s4f"><title>Limitations</title>
<p>In all regression analyses performed in this study, potential confounding factors that
were not assessed or included in the respective regression analysis cannot be excluded.
Therefore, extrapolations have to be done with care. For example, although no predictors
of oral presentation among accepted studies were identified, other aspects such as
novelty, which was not assessed in this study, may also play a role. Of note, the
presentation format at the Congress level is also subject to organizational aspects,
including the arrangement of consistent themes for scientific sessions.</p>
<p>Even though citation analysis is a widely accepted and neutral tool in evaluative
bibliometrics to provide quantitative indicators for scientific performance,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C17">17</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C28">28</xref>
–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C31">31</xref>
</sup>
we are aware
that it may be subject to bias. An article published in a very renowned journal or
authored by a well-known expert may enhance the number of its citations compared with a
similar article published in a less renowned journal or authored by a less known
scientist. Citation analysis can, of course, not replace but only complement expert peer
review in the evaluation of research. However, in the context of this study, we consider
citation suitable as an external quality assessment in the evaluation of a large number of
abstracts. Due to the extensive amount of studies, all authored by multiple investigators,
self-citation was not assessed. Importantly, no significant association between
institutional affiliation and the number of citations of a published article was observed,
indicating that this shortcoming is of minor importance for the respective results.</p>
<p>The chosen publication and citation windows, i.e. 2 years each, may not cover all
full-text publications among the studies assessed. For the rapid field of biomedical
research, however, a publication and citation window of 2 years each has been described to
cover the majority of publications and citation peaks.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C9">9</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C17">17</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C30">30</xref>
,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C31">31</xref>
</sup>
Furthermore, the assessment of the peer review and editorial process
at publication level is based on the assumption that studies that were not published in
the 4 years following the Congress had been submitted for full-text publication and been
rejected—which was not specifically assessed in this study. In essence, authors of
those studies identified as not published were not contacted to verify that the respective
studies had been submitted for publication in a peer review journal. Therefore, the
results of the logistic regression analysis on the level of publication may be affected by
factors that led to non-submission as opposed to reviewer ratings and editorial decisions.
Consequently, extrapolations regarding peer review and editorial process at publication
level have to be interpreted with care.</p>
<p>The discussed potential effect of anonymized peer review at publication level is based on
the work of others, stating that less than 20% of almost all English language
scientific and medical journals use double-blinded peer review.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="EHS113C3">3</xref>
</sup>
Editorial offices of all respective journals in this
study sample have not been contacted. As noted above, author gender was assessed using an
algorithm based on first- and surnames in addition to photographs where necessary and
available. The related findings may consequently be subject to bias based on the indirect
methods used.</p>
<p>Generalization of the data of this study, raised in the cardiovascular field, to other
medical specialties has to be handled with caution. Nevertheless, given the diversity and
quantity of cardiovascular science worldwide as well as the size of the cohort in this
study, our findings may be of interest to a broader audience of scientists in different
fields of medical research.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="s5"><title>Conclusions and possible room for improvement</title>
<p>High quality-research was determined by prospective study design that was readily
identified at Congress level. Average reviewer ratings predicted frequent citation rates,
indicating an effective evaluation process at Congress level. The scientometric follow-up
revealed an unexpected disparity between predictors of publication and citation, suggesting
a disadvantage of non-academic institutions and female senior authors at publication level.
The observed discrepancy between blinded peer review at Congress level and largely
single-blinded peer review at publication level indicates that blinding handling editors and
reviewers at publication level may merit a closer look.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s6"><title>Supplementary material</title>
<p><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113/-/DC1">Supplementary material is available at <italic>European Heart Journal</italic>
online</ext-link>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="s7"><title>Funding</title>
<p>This work was funded by the <funding-source>Foundation for Cardiovascular
Research</funding-source>
, Zurich, Switzerland, the <funding-source>Swiss National Science
Foundation</funding-source>
<award-id>310030-130626/1</award-id>
(C.M.M.), and the <funding-source>University Research
Priority Program</funding-source>
’ <funding-source>Integrative Human
Physiology</funding-source>
’ at the <funding-source>University of
Zurich</funding-source>
(P.-A.C., T.F.L., C.M.M.). The views expressed in this publication
are those of the authors and not necessarily of the funding organizations. Funding to pay
the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by the Foundation for
Cardiovascular Research (FCR) in Zurich, Switzerland.</p>
<p><bold>Conflict of interest:</bold>
none declared.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="supplementary-material"><title>Supplementary Material</title>
<supplementary-material id="PMC_1" content-type="local-data"><caption><title>Supplementary Data</title>
</caption>
<media mimetype="text" mime-subtype="html" xlink:href="supp_33_24_3034__index.html"></media>
<media xlink:role="associated-file" mimetype="application" mime-subtype="pdf" xlink:href="supp_ehs113_ehs113suppl.pdf"></media>
</supplementary-material>
</sec>
</body>
<back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title>
<p>We are grateful to Florence Biazeix for administrative assistance, and to Eirini Liova for
data collection and management.</p>
</ack>
<ref-list><title>References</title>
<ref id="EHS113C1"><label>1</label>
<element-citation publication-type="other"><collab>The European Society of Cardiology E</collab>
<article-title>ESC Congresses Reports</article-title>
<comment><uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.escardio.org/congresses/esc-2011/Pages/welcome.aspx">http://www.escardio.org/congresses/esc-2011/Pages/welcome.aspx</uri>
</comment>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C2"><label>2</label>
<element-citation publication-type="other"><collab>The European Society of Cardiology E</collab>
<article-title>Past ESC Congresses</article-title>
<comment><uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.escardio.org/congresses/past_congresses/Pages/past-ESC-congresses.aspx">http://www.escardio.org/congresses/past_congresses/Pages/past-ESC-congresses.aspx</uri>
</comment>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C3"><label>3</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Fisher</surname>
<given-names>M</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Friedman</surname>
<given-names>SB</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Strauss</surname>
<given-names>B</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer
review</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>272</volume>
<fpage>143</fpage>
<lpage>146</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8015127</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C4"><label>4</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Garfunkel</surname>
<given-names>JM</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Ulshen</surname>
<given-names>MH</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Hamrick</surname>
<given-names>HJ</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Lawson</surname>
<given-names>EE</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers’ recommendations and
editorial decisions</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>272</volume>
<fpage>137</fpage>
<lpage>138</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8015125</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C5"><label>5</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Olson</surname>
<given-names>CM</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Rennie</surname>
<given-names>D</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Cook</surname>
<given-names>D</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Dickersin</surname>
<given-names>K</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Flanagin</surname>
<given-names>A</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Hogan</surname>
<given-names>JW</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Zhu</surname>
<given-names>Q</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Reiling</surname>
<given-names>J</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Pace</surname>
<given-names>B</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Publication bias in editorial decision making</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>2002</year>
<volume>287</volume>
<fpage>2825</fpage>
<lpage>2828</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12038924</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C6"><label>6</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Callaham</surname>
<given-names>ML</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Wears</surname>
<given-names>RL</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Weber</surname>
<given-names>EJ</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Barton</surname>
<given-names>C</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Young</surname>
<given-names>G</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research
abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1998</year>
<volume>280</volume>
<fpage>254</fpage>
<lpage>257</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">9676673</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C7"><label>7</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Krzyzanowska</surname>
<given-names>MK</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Pintilie</surname>
<given-names>M</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Tannock</surname>
<given-names>IF</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials
presented at an oncology meeting</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>2003</year>
<volume>290</volume>
<fpage>495</fpage>
<lpage>501</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12876092</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C8"><label>8</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Raptis</surname>
<given-names>DA</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Oberkofler</surname>
<given-names>CE</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Gouma</surname>
<given-names>D</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Garden</surname>
<given-names>OJ</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Bismuth</surname>
<given-names>H</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Lerut</surname>
<given-names>T</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Clavien</surname>
<given-names>PA</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Fate of the peer review process at the ESA: long-term outcome of submitted
studies over a 5-year period</article-title>
<source>Ann Surg</source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>252</volume>
<fpage>715</fpage>
<lpage>725</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21037426</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C9"><label>9</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Scherer</surname>
<given-names>RW</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Dickersin</surname>
<given-names>K</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Langenberg</surname>
<given-names>P</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A
meta-analysis</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>272</volume>
<fpage>158</fpage>
<lpage>162</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8015133</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C10"><label>10</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Toma</surname>
<given-names>M</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>McAlister</surname>
<given-names>FA</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Bialy</surname>
<given-names>L</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Adams</surname>
<given-names>D</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Vandermeer</surname>
<given-names>B</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Armstrong</surname>
<given-names>PW</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for
randomized controlled trials</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>2006</year>
<volume>295</volume>
<fpage>1281</fpage>
<lpage>1287</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16537738</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C11"><label>11</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ross</surname>
<given-names>JS</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Gross</surname>
<given-names>CP</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Desai</surname>
<given-names>MM</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Hong</surname>
<given-names>Y</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Grant</surname>
<given-names>AO</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Daniels</surname>
<given-names>SR</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Hachinski</surname>
<given-names>VC</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Gibbons</surname>
<given-names>RJ</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Gardner</surname>
<given-names>TJ</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Krumholz</surname>
<given-names>HM</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>2006</year>
<volume>295</volume>
<fpage>1675</fpage>
<lpage>1680</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16609089</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C12"><label>12</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bartlett</surname>
<given-names>JE</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Kotrlik</surname>
<given-names>JW</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Higgins</surname>
<given-names>CC</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey
research</article-title>
<source>Info Technol Learn Perform J</source>
<year>2001</year>
<volume>19</volume>
<fpage>43</fpage>
<lpage>50</lpage>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C13"><label>13</label>
<element-citation publication-type="other"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Reuters</surname>
<given-names>T</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<comment>ISI Web of Knowledge <uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=4B7Nb@C@ED49jmIB51P&preferencesSaved=">http://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=4B7Nb@C@ED49jmIB51P&preferencesSaved=</uri>
</comment>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C14"><label>14</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>von Elm</surname>
<given-names>E</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Costanza</surname>
<given-names>MC</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Walder</surname>
<given-names>B</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Tramer</surname>
<given-names>MR</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic
review</article-title>
<source>BMC Med Res Methodol</source>
<year>2003</year>
<volume>3</volume>
<fpage>12</fpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12854973</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C15"><label>15</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Glasziou</surname>
<given-names>P</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Vandenbroucke</surname>
<given-names>JP</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Chalmers</surname>
<given-names>I</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Assessing the quality of research</article-title>
<source>BMJ</source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>328</volume>
<fpage>39</fpage>
<lpage>41</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14703546</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C16"><label>16</label>
<element-citation publication-type="other"><collab>Medicine TOCfE-B</collab>
<comment><italic>Levels of Evidence-based Medicine</italic>
<uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025">http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025</uri>
last update 2009; date last
accessed</comment>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C17"><label>17</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pendlebury</surname>
<given-names>DA</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation
indicators</article-title>
<source>Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz)</source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>57</volume>
<fpage>1</fpage>
<lpage>11</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19219526</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C18"><label>18</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kassirer</surname>
<given-names>JP</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Campion</surname>
<given-names>EW</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>272</volume>
<fpage>96</fpage>
<lpage>97</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8015140</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C19"><label>19</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bailar</surname>
<given-names>JC</given-names>
<suffix>3rd</suffix>
</name>
<name><surname>Patterson</surname>
<given-names>K</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>The need for a research agenda</article-title>
<source>N Engl J Med</source>
<year>1985</year>
<volume>312</volume>
<fpage>654</fpage>
<lpage>657</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">3974641</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C20"><label>20</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Abby</surname>
<given-names>M</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Massey</surname>
<given-names>MD</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Galandiuk</surname>
<given-names>S</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Polk</surname>
<given-names>HC</given-names>
<suffix>Jr</suffix>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical
manuscripts</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>272</volume>
<fpage>105</fpage>
<lpage>107</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8015116</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C21"><label>21</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Relman</surname>
<given-names>AS</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Angell</surname>
<given-names>M</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>How good is peer review?</article-title>
<source>N Engl J Med</source>
<year>1989</year>
<volume>321</volume>
<fpage>827</fpage>
<lpage>829</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">2770813</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C22"><label>22</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Link</surname>
<given-names>AM</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>US and Non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>272</volume>
<fpage>246</fpage>
<lpage>247</lpage>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C23"><label>23</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Laband</surname>
<given-names>DN</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Piette</surname>
<given-names>MJ</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1994</year>
<volume>272</volume>
<fpage>147</fpage>
<lpage>149</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8015128</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C24"><label>24</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ash</surname>
<given-names>AS</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Carr</surname>
<given-names>PL</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Goldstein</surname>
<given-names>R</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Friedman</surname>
<given-names>RH</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Compensation and advancement of women in academic medicine: is there
equity?</article-title>
<source>Ann Intern Med</source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>141</volume>
<fpage>205</fpage>
<lpage>212</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15289217</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C25"><label>25</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tesch</surname>
<given-names>BJ</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Wood</surname>
<given-names>HM</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Helwig</surname>
<given-names>AL</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Nattinger</surname>
<given-names>AB</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine. Glass ceiling or sticky
floor?</article-title>
<source>JAMA</source>
<year>1995</year>
<volume>273</volume>
<fpage>1022</fpage>
<lpage>1025</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">7897785</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C26"><label>26</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaplan</surname>
<given-names>SH</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Sullivan</surname>
<given-names>LM</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Dukes</surname>
<given-names>KA</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Phillips</surname>
<given-names>CF</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Kelch</surname>
<given-names>RP</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Schaller</surname>
<given-names>JG</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Sex differences in academic advancement. Results of a national study of
pediatricians</article-title>
<source>N Engl J Med</source>
<year>1996</year>
<volume>335</volume>
<fpage>1282</fpage>
<lpage>1289</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8857009</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C27"><label>27</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Levinson</surname>
<given-names>W</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Lurie</surname>
<given-names>N</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>When most doctors are women: what lies ahead?</article-title>
<source>Ann Intern Med</source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>141</volume>
<fpage>471</fpage>
<lpage>474</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15381521</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C28"><label>28</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Garfield</surname>
<given-names>E</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through
association of ideas</article-title>
<source>Science</source>
<year>1955</year>
<volume>122</volume>
<fpage>108</fpage>
<lpage>111</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14385826</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C29"><label>29</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Garfield</surname>
<given-names>E</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Is citation a legitimate evaluation tool?</article-title>
<source>Scientometrics</source>
<year>1979</year>
<volume>1</volume>
<fpage>359</fpage>
<lpage>375</lpage>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C30"><label>30</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Haeffner-Cavaillon</surname>
<given-names>N</given-names>
</name>
<name><surname>Graillot-Gak</surname>
<given-names>C</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>The use of bibliometric indicators to help peer-review
assessment</article-title>
<source>Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz)</source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>57</volume>
<fpage>33</fpage>
<lpage>38</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19219530</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="EHS113C31"><label>31</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Moed</surname>
<given-names>HF</given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title>New developments in the use of citation analysis in research
evaluation</article-title>
<source>Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz)</source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>57</volume>
<fpage>13</fpage>
<lpage>18</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19219533</pub-id>
</element-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</pmc>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Belgique/explor/OpenAccessBelV2/Data/Pmc/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000360 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000360 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Wicri/Belgique |area= OpenAccessBelV2 |flux= Pmc |étape= Corpus |type= RBID |clé= |texte= }}
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.25. | ![]() |