Abstract Introduction Scientific studies in Brazil grew around 10.7% compared to previous years. However, the level of quality of evidence has been decreasing. The aim in our study is to examine the meeting abstracts of the Brazilian congress of coloproctology and analyze the level of evidence in trends and variables. Methods A descriptive bibliometric study, working with secondary data to review scientific abstracts in the annals of the coloproctology congress from 2015 to 2019. Results A total of 1756 abstracts of the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology were analyzed for 5 years (2015-2019). There was a higher trend of abstracts presented with lower levels of evidence (level of evidence 5: 52.3% and 3: 30%), being the majority composed of case reports (49.4%) and retrospective studies (30.4%). The last two years analyzed (2018: 55.2% and 2019: 59.3%) had a predominance above average of case reports. From 2017 to 2019 there was a significant decrease in the number of level 2 evidence studies (18.10%,11.80% and 5.50%), while the number of studies with level 5 evidence showed an increase (45.60%, 56.60% and 61.40%). Statistical analysis occurred in only 17%, with an important decrease for the last two years (2018: 13.6%; 2019: 12.1%). Conclusions Although the data of this study is from the Brazilian coloproctology point of view, they are important for the global scientific community, as they allow a quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution from the level of evidence of Brazilian coloproctology researchers to the scientific scenario.

ABSTRACT Introduction The purpose of this retrospective bibliometric study was to assess the discrepancies between coloproctology surgery meeting abstracts and subsequent full-length manuscript publications. Methods Abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology Surgery from 2015 to 2019 were compared with matching manuscript publications. Discrepancies between the abstract and therefore the subsequent manuscript were categorized as major (changes within the purpose, methods, study design, sample size, statistical analysis, results, and conclusions) and minor (changes within the title, authorship, and number of female authors) variations. Results The conversion rate of abstracts in published manuscripts was 6,9% (121 abstracts). There were inconsistencies between the study title (66,1%), authorship (69,5%), study design (3,3%), sample size (39,2%), statistical analysis (24,8%), results (25,6%), and conclusions (12,4%) of manuscripts compared with their corresponding meeting abstracts. Conclusion As changes occur before manuscript publication of coloproctology surgery meeting abstracts, caution should be exercised in referencing abstracts or altering surgical practices based on abstracts content.

Abstract Introduction The presentation of abstracts in a congress is an important step for the dissemination of scientific information. The American Congress of Coloproctology is promoted by the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), and it is the largest in number of participants within the specialty, followed by the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology. The present study aims to evaluate variables related to the quality of the scientific production of the abstracts presented in these two events and their conversion rate to published manuscripts. Materials and Methods The present bibliometric study assesses secondary data from the review of abstracts presented in these 2 important conferences in 2016, followed by a research of the publications from these congress presentations. Results The total number of abstracts evaluated was 854. The rate of articles containing statistical analyses was of 73.7% in the American congress, and of 34.1% in the Brazilian congress. Multicentric studies were more prevalent in the American congress (23.1%). Regarding study design, the most common were case reports in the Brazilian (44.8%) congress and retrospective studies in the American congress (67.7%). As for the works presented, the rate of conversion into full manuscripts in the American congress was of 24.2% compared with 10.6% in the Brazilian congress. Most papers from the American congress (93.7%) have citations compared with 68.6% of the other event evaluated. Conclusion The scientific performance demonstrated by the conversion rate of abstracts into publications is below ideal, mainly in relation to the Brazilian meeting; yet, there were significant differences between the two events in terms of the profile of the presentations and several variables analyzed.

ABSTRACT Introduction: the presentation of research at a congress is an interesting means for scientific dissemination, but only with publication in an indexed journal does the data become accessible and disseminated. The conversion rate in published articles of abstracts presented at congresses is an indicator to assess the scientific quality of those events. The aim of this study is to evaluate bibliometric characteristics of abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology and to determine the factors that affect publication rates. Methods: Retrospective evaluation of all abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congresses of Coloproctology from 2015 to 2019. Multiple databases were analyzed to estimate the conversion rate of the presented papers, as well as variables associated with the conversion of abstracts into full manuscripts through bivariate analysis and multivariate variables of these predictors. Results: 1756 abstracts were analyzed. Most studies are retrospective, series or case reports, and even personal experience. The conversion rate was 6.9%. The presence of statistical analysis was twice as high for published abstracts as for unpublished ones. Conclusion: the data presented demonstrate a low scientific productivity of the specialty, since the research carried out is, for the most part, not published as complete manuscripts. The predictors of publication of abstracts were: multicenter studies, studies with statistical analysis, study designs with a higher level of evidence and studies awarded by the congress.

RESUMO Introdução: a apresentação de pesquisas em um congresso é meio interessante para disseminação científica, porém apenas com a publicação em revista indexada é que os dados se tornam acessíveis e disseminados. A taxa de conversão em artigos publicados de resumos apresentados em congressos é um indicador para avaliar a qualidade científica de seus eventos. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar características bibliométricas dos resumos apresentados no Congresso Brasileiro de Coloproctologia e determinar os fatores que afetam as taxas de publicação. Métodos: avaliação retrospectiva de todos os resumos apresentados nos Congressos Brasileiros de Coloproctologia dos anos de 2015 a 2019. Análise de múltiplas bases de dados para estimar a taxa de conversão dos trabalhos apresentados, assim como variáveis associadas à conversão dos resumos em manuscritos completos através de análises bivariadas e multivariadas desses preditores. Resultados: foram analisados 1756 resumos. A maioria dos estudos são retrospectivos, séries ou relatos de casos e até experiência pessoal. A taxa de conversão foi de 6,9%. A presença de análise estatística foi o dobro para os resumos publicados frente aos não publicados. Conclusão: os dados apresentados demonstram uma baixa produtividade científica da especialidade, já que as pesquisas realizadas não são publicadas, em sua maioria, como manuscritos completos. Os fatores preditores de publicação dos resumos foram: estudos multicêntricos, estudos contendo análise estatística, desenhos de estudo de maior nível de evidência e estudos premiados pelo congresso.

ABSTRACT Introduction: To assess the possible determinants that lead public to choose plastic surgeons as hand surgery specialists. Methods: General public members (n = 701) were asked to choose one or two specialists that they perceived to be an expert in 11 hand surgery-related scenarios. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were applied to assess the possible determinants (sociodemographic data, source of reported information, and previous plastic surgery contact) of public choice of plastic surgeons as experts in the hand surgery-related scenarios. Results: A significantly (all p < 0.05) poor understanding of the role of plastic surgeons was seen in infectious hand injury, hand tumor, hand fracture, hand tendon injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis deformity, and dupuytren contracture. Age was a significant (all p < 0.05) determinant of plastic surgeon as a response pattern. Conclusion: Participants’ age was a determinant of public choose plastic surgeons as experts in hand surgery area.

RESUMO Introdução: O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar os possíveis determinantes para o público escolher os cirurgiões plásticos como especialistas em cirurgia de mão. Métodos: Membros do público (n = 701) escolheram um ou dois especialistas que eles acreditassem serem experts para 11 cenários relacionados à cirurgia de mão. Análises bivariadas e multivariadas foram aplicadas para avaliar os possíveis determinantes (dados sociodemográficos, fontes de informações e contato prévio com a cirurgia plástica) para o público escolher os cirurgiões plásticos como especialistas em cirurgia de mão. Resultados: Houve uma compreensão limitada (p < 0,05 para todas as comparações) sobre o papel dos cirurgiões plásticos em infecção da mão, tumor da mão, fratura da mão, lesão tendinosa da mão, síndrome do túnel do carpo, artrite reumatoide e contratura de Dupuytren. Apenas a idade foi um (p < 0,05 para todas as comparações) determinante significativo de cirurgião plástico como um padrão de resposta. Conclusão: A idade foi um fator determinante da escolha pública de cirurgiões plásticos como especialistas em arena de cirurgia da mão.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Previous studies have shown that the public has misconceptions about the work of plastic surgeons in hand surgery. However, no specific Brazilian data on this issue are available. The objective of this study was to evaluate the public perceptions about the role of plastic surgeons in the field of hand surgery in Brazil. Methods: Members of the Brazilian public chose one or two specialists whom they believed to be experts in eight scenarios related to hand surgery. The patterns of the responses were distributed into “plastic surgeons” or “non-plastic surgeons.” Results: Non-plastic surgeons were significantly (p < 0.05 for all comparisons) more recognized as experts than plastic surgeons in all scenarios related to hand surgery. Conclusion: The knowledge and perceptions of the Brazilian public about the work performed by plastic surgeons in the field of hand surgery are limited.

RESUMO Introdução: Estudos prévios têm revelado que o público tem conhecimentos equivocados sobre a atuação dos cirurgiões plásticos em cirurgia da mão. No entanto, não existem dados específicos na literatura científica brasileira. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar as percepções do público sobre o papel dos cirurgiões plásticos no campo de cirurgia da mão no Brasil. Métodos: Membros do público brasileiro escolheram um ou dois especialistas que eles acreditassem serem experts para oito cenários relacionados à cirurgia de mão. Os padrões de respostas foram distribuídos como “cirurgiões plásticos” ou “não cirurgiões plásticos”. Resultados: “Não cirurgiões plásticos” foram significativamente (p < 0,05 para todas as comparações) mais reconhecidos como experts que “cirurgiões plásticos” em todos os cenários relacionados à cirurgia de mão. Conclusão: Os conhecimentos e as percepções do público brasileiro sobre o trabalho realizado por cirurgiões plásticos no campo cirurgia da mão são limitados.