From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citation

Aims 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. Methods and results 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 (n= 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. Conclusions 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 Congres

The impact of modern noninvasive cardiac imaging on coronary intervention rates

OBJECTIVES: It remains still unclear whether the use of modern noninvasive diagnostic modalities for evaluation of coronary artery disease (computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI)) were able to change the "diagnostic yield" of invasive coronary angiography (ICA). METHODS: The total number of ICA in the years 2000-2009 was related to the number of percutaneous interventions (PCIs) and we assessed whether there was a significant trend over time using time series analyses. We compared these data with the number of patients undergoing CTCA and nuclear MPI in the same time period. RESULTS: During the 10-year observational period, 23,397 ICA were performed. The proportion of purely diagnostic ICA (without PCI) remained stable over the whole study period (tau = -0.111, P = 0.721). A CTCA program was initiated in 2005 and 1,407 examinations were performed until 2009. Similarly, the number of nuclear MPI increased from 2,284 in the years 2000-2004 to 5,260 in the years 2005-2009 (P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Despite increasing availability, noninvasive testing modalities did not significantly alter the rate of purely diagnostic ICA, and still are underused as gatekeeper to ICA. Further effort is needed to optimize the use of noninvasive imaging modalities in the work-up process for coronary artery disease. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:50-57)

From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citation

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.Methods and resultsAll 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 (n= 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.ConclusionsResearch 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