Skip to main content

Table 3 Post-hoc comparison of oral versus poster abstracts and publications

From: Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference

Abstract variables

Oral (n = 16)

Poster (n = 84)

p value

Research location in North America

14 (88%)

57 (68%)

0.14

Methodological quality

 Randomized

1 (6%)

26 (31%)

0.06

 Primary outcome given

2 (13%)

24 (29%)

0.23

 Numbers with denominators

0 (0%)

6 (7%)

0.59

Ethical quality

 Highest species rodent

13 (81%)

48 (57%)

0.07

 Number of animals stated

3 (19%)

44 (52%)

0.02

 Number of animals used

28 (SD 17)

29 (SD 12)

0.27

Outcomes

 Main outcomes positive

16 (100%)

74 (88%)

0.36

 Statistically significant result

9 (56%)

46 (55%)

0.95

Type of animal model

 Sepsis

8 (50%)

52 (62%)

0.41

 Drug used

8 (50%)

53 (63%)

0.40

 Surgery

11 (69%)

51 (61%)

0.59

Publication variables

Oral published (n = 14)

Poster published (n = 48)

p value

Methodological quality

 Randomized

1 (7%)

23 (48%)

0.006

 Blinded

0 (0%)

4 (8%)

0.57

 Primary outcome given

0 (0%)

3 (6%)

0.99

 Numbers with denominators

3 (21%)

18 (38%)

0.35

Ethical quality

 Number of animals stated

4 (29%)

31 (65%)

0.03

 Number of animals used

46 (SD 55)

26 (SD 19)

0.53

Outcomes

 Main outcomes positive

14 (100%)

48 (100%)

0.99

 Statistically significant result

13 (93%)

45 (94%)

0.99

Journal factors

 Journal impact factor

5.1 (SD 3.2)

5.3 (SD 5.3)

0.92

 Months to publication

31 (SD 23)

20 (SD 14)

0.12

  1. Comparisons made using Fisher’s Exact or Chi square test, or independent samples student t test, as appropriate