A view from the coffee room… congress abstracts – good science or bad science?

I vividly remember when attending congresses was in real life only. Today that seems like another reality. I do remember the awkward moments, when I had like one microsecond to decide how to greet my congress acquaintances. Should I greet them with familiarity, or formally, or just casually wave my hand when walking by. As a person coming from a northern country, apart from choosing the right way to greet acquaintances, another custom of the continental Europe is causing me quite a lot of anxiety: air kisses. Which cheek comes first and how many are appropriate, because I don’t want to seem like a stalker, and what if I accidentally belch simultaneously. So many things to consider and be afraid of.

Traditionally the success of congresses have been measured by the number of participants and by the number of abstracts ¹. This obviously translates to money made by the organizing entity. Before the advent of internet, medical congresses were truly occasions where top scientific innovations were presented, new techniques were introduced, and with a chance to learn from experts ². Nowadays knowledge is available for anyone at anytime and anywhere. Of course, I will not dismiss the value of face-to-face interactions, that has led to great innovations and is personally meaningful to those participating in such actions.

What about the keynote speakers – superstars of their specialty. The more famous the keynote speaker, the more attractive congress is likely to be. In social media, there are events that are called meet-and-greet events. By definition, these events are arranged so that a famous person i.e. influencer can meet and talk to the people. Or is it vice versa actually. Meet-and-greet events are not quite the normal fan event, but almost. Well, to me it sounds a lot like inviting keynote speakers.

Have you ever wondered how many of the congress abstract are published afterwards? I don’t know how is in your institution, but in mine, if you have abstract that is accepted to the congress you are allowed to participate in the congress. So basically, the abstract is your passport to the congress, of course if accepted. Bear in mind simultaneously, that some congress organisers tend to accept papers for monetary and other reasons. The worst example of these are the predatory congresses or predatory meetings. Predatory meetings are an extension of predatory publishing groups – this is their business model. These shady businesses seem to infiltrate aspect of academic life. And I bet we are not able to recognise them. I get a lot of junk mail, that at first glance looks legit, but with thorough scrutiny revealed to be a money scam. Usually, the invitation cites my published paper and profusely praises it. The funny thing is that in most cases, the paper has nothing to do with the name of the “congress”. Another hint to look for is multidisciplinarity. These meeting invitations cheerfully mix all kind of medical specialties together, even with veterinary sciences.

Soooo, I have seen and heard excellent papers being presented in the congresses that have literally changed the way I think. Having said that, I have also seen presentations that made me feel second-hand vicarious embarrassment. Unfortunately, I have witnessed more of the latter. What makes a presentation horrible, you may ask? In my opinion, it is not adhering to the good scientific practice. Every study should have an approval from their institutional review board, and in some cases even ethics committee approval. There could be ambiguity how the cohort is chosen – every patient fitting the inclusion criteria or just those with a pretty outcome. Of note, quality of life study is not asking the patient are you happy with the result, or would the patient recommend the procedure to their friends. I detest floppy review of the literature, or just including studies with inferior outcomes, to make the results and presentation stand out. And. “In MY hands” and “With the method I developed“ type of phrases and 100% success rates. I don’t mind the bad English or messy PowerPoint slides. It is always the science.

Regarding my previous question, have you ever wondered how many of the congress abstract are published afterwards, at 16 months after the congress only 41.4% of the presentations were published ³. Fortunately, the percentage of published abstracts was 70.5% at three years after the congress ³. Only 25% of 1386 abstracts published according a study from Australia and general surgery ⁴. Positive prognostic factors associated with abstract publication were prospective study, multicentre study, and larger cohort size ⁵.

Both British and American urologists have abstract to publication turnover rates of about 40% at three years after the congress in 2006 ⁶. However, the follow-up study in 2017 showed that only 24.2% abstracts turned to publications ⁷. Another follow-up study showed that abstract to publication turnover rate varied from 24.1% to 39.4% in four surgical society meetings ⁸, with a much lower turnover rate compared with 2001. Hope comes from Dutch group, as 1-, 3-, and 5-year publication rates were 22.4%, 62.2%, and 68.6% respectively⁹. Interestingly this study also analysed the fate of rejected abstracts, with 1-,3- and 5-year publication rates 20.9%, 50.3%, and 57.7% respectively ⁹. It is not end of the world, or end of your academic career if your abstract does not get accepted in the congress. Bite the bullet and keep on biting until you get your article published. I have had many many, many more rejections than acceptances. I am not against congresses and conferences. I am merely suggesting that maybe we all should re-think the whole concept.