RESUMEN
Background: The landscape of infectious diseases research by interprofessional teams continues to change in both scope and engagement. Limited information exists regarding publication metrics and factors associated with publication of abstracts presented at professional infectious diseases meetings. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study evaluating abstracts presented at IDWeek in 2017 and 2018. The primary endpoint was the proportion of abstracts that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Factors associated with publication were evaluated, and a description of publication metrics was reported. Results: Of the 887 abstracts analyzed from the IDWeek meetings, 236 (26.6%) were published. Significantly more abstracts were published if they were presented as a platform presentation versus poster presentation (35% vs 21%, P < .001). Inclusion of a PhD author significantly increased the likelihood of publication (P = .0014). Prospective studies, greater number of authors, and greater number of study subjects were more common among published abstracts. Median time to publication was 10.9 months, and the majority were published in infectious diseases journals, with an overall average impact factor of 7.7 across all journals. Conclusions: Abstracts from IDWeek presented as oral platforms and those including a PhD author were more likely to be published. Large, diverse authorship teams were common among published abstracts. The high quality of resulting manuscripts is evident by the destination journals and their respective impact factors. These data may be used to inform and motivate clinicians and trainees engaging in infectious diseases-related research.