摘要：Objective Abstracts submitted to meetings are subject to less rigorous peer review than full-text manuscripts. This study aimed to explore the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) annual meeting. Methods Abstracts presented at the 2008 AAO meeting were analyzed. Each presented abstract was sought via PubMed to identify if it had been published as a full-text manuscript. The publication outcome, journal impact factor (IF), and time to publication were recorded. Results A total of 690 abstracts were reviewed, of which 39.1% were subsequently published. They were published in journals with a median IF of 2.9 (range 0–7.2) and a median publication time of 426 days (range 0–2,133 days). A quarter were published in the journal Ophthalmology, with a shorter time to publication (median 282 vs. 534 days, p =0.003). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (57.8% vs. 35.9%, p <0.001) and in journals with higher IFs (3.2 vs. 2.8, p =0.02). Abstracts describing rare diseases had higher publication rates (49.4% vs. 38.0%, p =0.04) and were published in higher IF journals (3.7 vs. 2.9, p =0.03), within a shorter period of time (358 vs. 428 days, p =0.03). In multivariate analysis, affiliation with an institute located in the United States ( p =0.002), abstracts describing rare diseases ( p =0.03), and funded studies ( p =0.03) were associated with publication in higher IF journals. Conclusions Almost 40% of abstracts were published. Factors that correlated with publication in journals with higher IF were a focus on rare diseases, affiliation with a US institute, and funding.
