Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 10, 2025
Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Including conference abstracts rarely changed systematic review conclusions: a case study from a living network
Maria-Jose Oliveros1, Sara Ibrahim2, Gonzalo Bravo3
1Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, L8S 4L8, Ontario, Canada; Departamento de Ciencias de la Rehabilitación, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile; Universidad de La Frontera, Facultad de Medicina, Centro de Excelencia CIGES, Temuco, Chile.
Background And Objectives:
Including conference abstracts (CAs) in systematic reviews (SRs) helps reduce publication bias but raises concerns about reporting quality and reliability. While discrepancies with full publications are known, excluding CAs may overlook relevant early evidence. To evaluate the reporting quality of CAs, their consistency with full-text publications, and the impact of including them on effect estimates and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis (SRNMA) of COVID-19 drug treatments.
Study Design And Setting:
We conducted a retrospective methodological study of all CAs included in the COVID-19 SRNMA until May 19, 2024. We assessed trial characteristics, reporting quality using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-A, and consistency with full-text publications. We also compared meta-analyses with and without CAs at predefined time points for mortality and hospital length of stay, evaluating changes in effect and GRADE domains.
Results:
We included 105 CAs; 53% (56/105) were linked to a full publication. Only 7% met high reporting standards. Average consistency with full-text publications across key methodological items was 67.6%, often due to missing details in both sources. CAs enabled meta-analyses that would not have been possible at 14% of time points. Their inclusion did not affect conclusions when using the null threshold but changed the effect estimate in 55.6% and imprecision ratings in 16% of cases when using minimally important differences (MIDs). In a few instances, CAs also influenced risk of bias and inconsistency assessments.
Conclusion:
CAs can fill evidence gaps when data are limited or emerging. Although they rarely change conclusions based on the null threshold, their inclusion has a greater impact when using MID. Reviewers should assess their inclusion case by case and promote better reporting practices to enhance their contribution to SRs.
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
02:49Cancer Therapies
However, cancer treatments can pose several challenges, as therapies used to kill cancer cells are generally also toxic to normal cells. Moreover, cancer cells mutate rapidly and can develop resistance to chemical agents or radiation therapy. Besides, all types of cancer cells may not respond to the same therapy. Some cancer cells respond to one...
01:27Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:25Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...