Objectives: Current policy and practice regarding identification of and extent of use of data from conference abstracts in health technology assessment reviews (TARs) are examined.

Methods: The methods used were (i) survey of TAR groups to identify general policy and experience related to use of abstract data, and (ii) audit of TARs commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and published between January 2000 and October 2004.

Results: Five of seven TAR groups reported a general policy that included searching for and including studies available as conference abstracts and presentations. A total of sixty-three published HTA reports for NICE were identified. Of these reports, thirty-eight identified at least one randomized controlled trial available as an abstract/presentation. Twenty-six (68 percent) of these thirty-eight TARs included studies available as abstracts.

Conclusions: There are variations in policy and practice across TAR groups regarding the searching for and inclusion of studies available as conference abstracts. There is a need for clarity and transparency for review teams regarding how abstract data are managed. If conference abstracts are to be included, reviewers need to allocate additional time for searching and managing data from these sources. Review teams should also be encouraged to state explicitly their search strategies for identifying conference abstracts, their methods for assessing these abstracts for inclusion and, where appropriate, how the data were used and their effect on the results.

Background and objective: To assess the publication rate of full papers presented as abstracts at the 1995 meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists, and to assess factors that might predict subsequent full publication.

Methods: All abstracts presented at the meeting and published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (Suppl 1, 1995) were included. To verify subsequent full publication, a MEDLINE search was performed and validated. We studied the average time from the meeting to publication, the first author's country, the subspeciality, the publishing journal of the full report, the type of presentation (oral or poster), the object of investigation, and the quality of research design and of statistical reporting in the abstract.

Results: Of 472 meeting abstracts, 199 (42.2%) were eventually published. The average (± SD) delay between meeting and publication was 16.8 (15.6) months (range 24–60 months). Most papers (79.4%) had been published within 3 yr of the meeting. Circulation, pharmacology and intensive care papers had the highest rates of publication. Sixty-three journals attracted papers, with the British Journal of Anaesthesia publishing most (n = 29). No difference in subsequent publication was found between oral and poster presentations. Randomized trials and animal research were more likely to be published. The number of authors or their positions differed between the abstract and the full publication in 145 cases (72.9%); the first author was changed in 43 cases.

Conclusions: Less than half of the abstracts accepted at the 1995 European Society of Anesthesiologists' meeting were subsequently published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in the 3 yr following the meeting. Many changes in authorship occurred between the abstract and the full publication. The study architecture and the object of investigation predicted full publication.