Background & Aims:Results of randomized clinical trials are often first presented as conference abstracts, but these abstracts may be difficult to find, and trial results included in the abstract may not be followed by subsequent journal publications. In a review of abstracts submitted to eight major medical and surgical conferences in 2017, we identified 237 abstracts reporting primary results of randomized clinical trials accepted for presentation at three major gastroenterology and hepatology conferences. The aims of this new analysis were to determine the publication rate for these abstracts and the proportion of publications that included trial registration numbers in the publication abstract. Methods:Clinical trial registries, PubMed, Europe PMC, and Google Scholar were searched through November 1, 2021, for publications reporting trial results for the selected abstracts. Publications were reviewed to determine if they included a trial registration number and if the registration number was in the abstract. Results:Publications were found for 157 abstracts (66%) within four years of the conference. Publications were found more frequently for the 194 abstracts reporting results of registered trials (144, 74%) than for the 43 abstracts reporting unregistered trials (13, 30%), but only 67% of these 144 publications included the registration number in the publication abstract. Ten unpublished trials had summary results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusions:Clinical trial results could be more accessible if all trials were registered, authors included registration numbers in both conference and journal abstracts, and journal editors required the inclusion of registration numbers in publication abstracts for registered clinical trials.

This cross-sectional study reviews abstracts presented at 8 major medical and surgical conferences held in 2017 to assess the extent to which abstracts reporting randomized clinical trial results cite trial registration numbers and conform to key CONSORT guidelines.

Coronary artery diameter in South Asians has been investigated as a risk factor in the development of coronary artery disease with variable findings. Studies have compared the diameter but not the vessel cross-sectional area which would determine the atheroma burden required to have a

IntroductionElderly patients (≥75 years) undergoing coronary angioplasty are increasing. Meta-analyses have shown the benefits of radial access which might reduce hospital stay by decreasing access site complications with associated secondary benefits, however, the population over the age of 75 years were not a large part of the cohort and may behave differently due to increased atherosclerotic burden and age-related vascular changes. In addition, complications unique to this age group such as delirium and deconditioning might occur which could have a bearing on the outcome.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, SCOPUS, Medline, Dynamed, Cochrane. The search terms used were femoral and radial, femoral versus radial, radial or femoral access site, radial or femoral comparison. There were no restrictions.ResultsThere was a significant decrease (85%)in the incidence of access site complications in the radial group. The time to achieve ambulation was lower by 14.25h (8.86–19.56h). However, the incidence of crossover (in effect failure to perform catheterization by radial access) from radial to femoral was significantly higher. Radial access was associated with longer procedural times (2.75min) and increased contrast dose however, there was no statistical difference in the fluoroscopy time between the two.ConclusionsRadial access has similar benefits in elderly patients as those under the age of 75 and may be beneficial in patients at risk of delirium or deconditioning. However, crossover rates, contrast dose and procedure time were higher. It is conceivable that as experience is gained, these rates will diminish.