Assessing the level of evidence of presented studies at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology

Introduction: Scientific studies in Brazil grew around 10.7% compared to previous years. However, the level of quality of evidence has been decreasing. The aim in our study is to examine the meeting abstracts of the Brazilian congress of coloproctology and analyze the level of evidence in trends and variables. Methods: A descriptive bibliometric study, working with secondary data to review scientific abstracts in the annals of the coloproctology congress from 2015 to 2019. Results: A total of 1756 abstracts of the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology were analyzed for 5 years (2015-2019). There was a higher trend of abstracts presented with lower levels of evidence (level of evidence 5: 52.3% and 3: 30%), being the majority composed of case reports (49.4%) and retrospective studies (30.4%). The last two years analyzed (2018: 55.2% and 2019: 59.3%) had a predominance above average of case reports. From 2017 to 2019 there was a significant decrease in the number of level 2 evidence studies (18.10%,11.80% and 5.50%), while the number of studies with level 5 evidence showed an increase (45.60%, 56.60% and 61.40%). Statistical analysis occurred in only 17%, with an important decrease for the last two years (2018: 13.6%; 2019: 12.1%). Conclusions: Although the data of this study is from the Brazilian coloproctology point of view, they are important for the global scientific community, as they allow a quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution from the level of evidence of Brazilian coloproctology researchers to the scientific scenario. (AU)

Discrepancies of abstracts presented in coloproctology congresses and later publish as full manuscripts: a Brazilian perspective

Introduction: The purpose of this retrospective bibliometric study was to assess the discrepancies between coloproctology surgery meeting abstracts and subsequent full-length manuscript publications. Methods: Abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology Surgery from 2015 to 2019 were compared with matching manuscript publications. Discrepancies between the abstract and therefore the subsequent manuscript were categorized as major (changes within the purpose, methods, study design, sample size, statistical analysis, results, and conclusions) and minor (changes within the title, authorship, and number of female authors) variations. Results: The conversion rate of abstracts in published manuscripts was 6,9% (121 abstracts). There were inconsistencies between the study title (66,1%), authorship (69,5%), study design (3,3%), sample size (39,2%), statistical analysis (24,8%), results (25,6%), and conclusions (12,4%) of manuscripts compared with their corresponding meeting abstracts. Conclusion: As changes occur before manuscript publication of coloproctology surgery meeting abstracts, caution should be exercised in referencing abstracts or altering surgical practices based on abstracts content. (AU)

An American and Brazilian perspective on abstracts presented in coloproctology conferences converted into published manuscripts

Introduction: The presentation of abstracts in a congress is an important step for the dissemination of scientific information. The American Congress of Coloproctology is promoted by the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), and it is the largest in number of participants within the specialty, followed by the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology. The present study aims to evaluate variables related to the quality of the scientific production of the abstracts presented in these two events and their conversion rate to published manuscripts. Materials and Methods: The present bibliometric study assesses secondary data from the review of abstracts presented in these 2 important conferences in 2016, followed by a research of the publications from these congress presentations. Results: The total number of abstracts evaluated was 854. The rate of articles containing statistical analyses was of 73.7% in the American congress, and of 34.1% in the Brazilian congress. Multicentric studies were more prevalent in the American congress (23.1%). Regarding study design, the most common were case reports in the Brazilian (44.8%) congress and retrospective studies in the American congress (67.7%). As for the works presented, the rate of conversion into full manuscripts in the American congress was of 24.2% compared with 10.6% in the Brazilian congress. Most papers from the American congress (93.7%) have citations compared with 68.6% of the other event evaluated. Conclusion: The scientific performance demonstrated by the conversion rate of abstracts into publications is below ideal, mainly in relation to the Brazilian meeting; yet, there were significant differences between the two events in terms of the profile of the presentations and several variables analyzed. (AU)