↓ Skip to main content

When will I see you again? The fate of research findings from international wound care conferences*

Overview of attention for article published in International Wound Journal, December 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
When will I see you again? The fate of research findings from international wound care conferences*
Published in
International Wound Journal, December 2007
DOI 10.1111/j.1742-481x.2007.00343.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo C Dumville, Emily S Petherick, Nicky Cullum

Abstract

Medical conferences provide a forum for the rapid dissemination of research directly to health professionals and academics. However, the published record of poster and oral presentations from these meetings is usually limited to abstracts. We aimed to assess how many wound studies presented as conference abstracts were eventually published in journals and to identify the factors that predicted publication. The study was a retrospective review. We identified abstracts relating to oral and poster presentation from two large wound conferences. Following data extraction from the abstracts, a systematic search was conducted to examine if the research was subsequently published as a journal article. A time-to-event analysis was conducted to assess predictive associations between features of the research reported in the conference abstracts and time to full publication. In total, 492 abstracts from two European wound care conferences were identified (467 after exclusions). Of the abstracts included, 60% (279) were for posters and 40% (188) were for oral presentations. Over half of the abstracts (53%) reported results from case studies or case series design. In total, only 57 (12%) of the abstracts included resulted in a related publication. Analysis suggested that those studies reporting positive findings were significantly more likely to be published (hazard ratio 1.79, P= 0.001, 95% CIs 1.26-2.55). Few studies presented as conference abstracts at these two wounds conferences were subsequently published. This may be because of the low methodological quality of studies accepted for poster or oral presentation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 13%
Unspecified 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2012.
All research outputs
#1,981,008
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Wound Journal
#88
of 1,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,468
of 166,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Wound Journal
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 166,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.