Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Dentistry
Volume 2012, Article ID 859561, 7 pages
Research Article

Discrepancies between Abstracts Presented at International Association for Dental Research Annual Sessions from 2004 to 2005 and Full-Text Publication

1Department of General Dental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, 1801 W Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53233-2186, USA
2Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry (MC 555), University of Illinois at Chicago, 801 South Paulina Street, Room 365B, Chicago, IL 60612-7211, USA
3Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Aracatuba Dental School, Jose Bonifacio, 1193, 16015-050 Aracatuba, SP, Brazil
4Advanced Education in Prosthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Davie, FL 33314-7796, USA

Received 25 July 2011; Revised 10 October 2011; Accepted 25 November 2011

Academic Editor: Izzet Yavuz

Copyright © 2012 Soni Prasad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the discrepancies between abstracts presented at the IADR meeting (2004-2005) and their full-text publication. Material and Methods. Abstracts from the Prosthodontic Section of IADR meeting were obtained. The following information was collected: abstract title, number of authors, study design, statistical analysis, outcome, and funding source. PubMed was used to identify the full-text publication of the abstracts. The discrepancies between the abstract and the full-text publication were examined, categorized as major and minor discrepancies, and quantified. The data were collected and analyzed using descriptive analysis. Frequency and percentage of major and minor discrepancies were calculated. Results. A total of 109 (95.6%) articles showed changes from their abstracts. Seventy-four (65.0%) and 105 (92.0%) publications had at least one major and one minor discrepancies, respectively. Minor discrepancies were more prevalent (92.0%) than major discrepancies (65.0%). The most common minor discrepancy was observed in the title (80.7%), and most common major discrepancies were seen in results (48.2%). Conclusion. Minor discrepancies were more prevalent than major discrepancies. The data presented in this study may be useful to establish a more comprehensive structured abstract requirement for future meetings.