Table 1 Potentially predictive variables for subsequent publication of abstracts presented at an international critical care conference
Potential predictor variable | Published (n = 62) | Non-published (n = 38) | p valuea |
|---|---|---|---|
Type of presentation | |||
 Oral (vs. poster) presentation | 14 (23%) | 2 (5%) | 0.025 |
 Research location in North Americab | 40 (65%) | 31 (82%) | 0.075 |
Methodological quality variables | |||
 Randomized | 17 (27%) | 10 (26%) | 0.99 |
 Blinded | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – |
 Primary outcome given | 13 (21%) | 13 (34%) | 0.16 |
 Numbers with denominators | 4 (6%) | 2 (5%) | 0.99 |
 Number of animals stated | 30 (48%) | 17 (45%) | 0.84 |
 Sample size calculation | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – |
Ethical quality variables | |||
 Highest species rodentc | 35 (56%) | 26 (68%) | 0.23 |
 >19 animals used | 15/30 (50%) | 5/17 (29%) | 0.14 |
Outcome variables | |||
 Main outcomes positive | 57 (92%) | 33 (87%) | 0.50 |
 Statistically significant result | 35 (56%) | 20 (53%) | 0.71 |
Type of animal model | |||
 Sepsis | 27 (44%) | 13 (34%) | 0.41 |
 Drug used | 24 (39%) | 15 (39%) | 0.99 |
 Surgery performed | 25 (40%) | 13 (34%) | 0.67 |
 Animals stated to be killed | 34 (55%) | 21 (55%) | 0.99 |
Potential predictor variable | Data in publication (n = 62) | Data in abstract (n = 38) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
Post-hoc comparisons | |||
 Indicators of publication bias | |||
  Main outcomes positive | 62 (100%) | 33 (87%) | 0.003 |
  Statistically significant result | 58 (94%) | 20 (53%) | <0.001 |
 Indicators of methodological quality | |||
  Randomized | 24 (39%) | 10 (26%) | 0.20 |
  Blinded | 4 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 0.080 |