Table 4 Post-hoc comparison of abstracts that were subsequently published in lower versus higher impact journals
Potential predictor variable | Published in lower impact (n = 32) | Published in higher impact (n = 30) | p valuea |
|---|---|---|---|
Type of presentation | |||
 Oral (vs. poster) presentation | 7 (22%) | 7 (23%) | 0.99 |
 Research location in North America | 17 (53%) | 23 (77%) | 0.07 |
Methodological quality variables | |||
 Randomized | 7 (22%) | 10 (33%) | 0.40 |
 Blinded | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – |
 Primary outcome given | 6 (19%) | 7 (23%) | 0.76 |
 Numbers with denominators | 1 (3%) | 3 (10%) | 0.35 |
 Number of animals stated | 14 (44%) | 16 (53%) | 0.61 |
 Sample size calculation | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | – |
Ethical quality variables | |||
 Highest species rodent | 20 (63%) | 15 (50%) | 0.32 |
 >19 animals used | 6 (19%) | 9 (30%) | 0.30 |
Outcome variables | |||
 Main outcomes positive | 28 (88%) | 29 (97%) | 0.36 |
 Statistically significant result | 17 (53%) | 18 (60%) | 0.59 |
Type of animal model | |||
 Sepsis | 9 (28%) | 18 (60%) | 0.02 |
 Drug used | 14 (44%) | 10 (33%) | 0.44 |
 Surgery performed | 12 (38%) | 13 (43%) | 0.80 |
 Animals stated to be killed | 19 (59%) | 15 (50%) | 0.61 |