Helen Chambers, Publication Manager at Costello Medical Consulting, discusses abstract resubmissions, and whether sufficient information is available to ensure that resubmitted abstracts can reach different audiences and so add value to a publication plan.

Recorded 1 June 2016 at a MedComms Networking event in Oxford. Produced by NetworkPharma.tv

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

ABSTRACT:

An abstract is often the first public disclosure of information from a study, and, for pharmaceutical companies, can offer a unique opportunity to publicise new data and enable it to be cited ahead of full publication. Pharmaceutical companies often want to re-submit their abstracts to additional congresses following the first publication, with the assumption that this will help to disseminate key findings. Costello Medical conducted a study to test this assumption, which they originally presented at the EMWA 2016 spring conference, Munich.

Good Publication Practice guidelines (GPP3) state that: ‘…repeated presentation of data to different congresses is permissible to reach different audiences, provided that the congress permits this ‘encore’ presentation and copyright requirements are respected’. Costello identified the top 10 congresses across each of eight high-interest disease areas, and looked for online information re the attendees across nine categories, including age range, practice speciality, work setting, degree level, and primary interests. Of the 80 congresses screened, only half provided any delegate information; the remainder disclosed information on an average of four of the nine assessed categories – of which the most frequently reported were the total number of attendees and the top countries/regions attending. Larger conferences and those based in the USA were more likely to provide delegate information. The study concluded that, for most disease areas analysed, it would be difficult to know in advance the typical audience of a congress, using only publicly available information. Greater transparency in the disclosure of congress attendance information, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, would help stakeholders to evaluate if submission of the same abstract to multiple congresses adds value to a publication plan.

Written by Penny Gray, Freelance Medical Writer

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

We are building a library of free webcasts, like this one, for the global MedComms Community and others at http://www.networkpharma.tv and we’d welcome your suggestions for new topics and speakers.

Full details of this MedComms Networking event are at http://medcommsnetworking.com/event74.html

Helen’s presentation (PDF format) is at http://medcommsnetworking.com/presentations/chambers_010616.pdf

Ref: Battisti WP, Wager E, Baltzer L, Bridges D, Cairns A, Carswell CI, et al. Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med is at http://www.annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/M15-0288

Helen’s Linkedin page is at https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-chambers-22177760/

More about Costello Medical Consulting can be found at:

Web: http://www.costellomedical.com

Filming and technical direction by Mario Crispino, Freelance Cameraman & Editor

[For the avoidance of doubt: this video is intended to be freely accessible to all. Please feel free to share and use however you like. Cheers Peter Llewellyn, Director NetworkPharma Ltd and Founder of the MedComms Networking Community activity at http://www.medcommsnetworking.com]