BackgroundPublication of scientific work, although mandatory to ensure dissemination of novel research findings and obtain further funding, can require considerably more time and effort compared to conference presentations. Several national or scientific societies have determined the publication rate of studies reported at their meetings. The French Society for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société française de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, SoFCOT) has not yet measured this parameter. The objective of this study was to (i) evaluate the full-text publication rate of studies accepted in abstract form for podium presentations or posters at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting and (ii) identify characteristics of abstracts associated with subsequent full-text publication.HypothesisThe full-text publication rate of abstracts accepted for the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was equal to or greater than the mean reported by national societies, i.e., 44.5%.Material and methodsPublication rates of the 503 studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting were studied. The time horizon was thus at least 5 years. The topic was orthopaedic surgery for 315 (62.6%) abstracts, trauma surgery for 153 (30.4%) abstracts, and fractures in elderly patients – the cross-field theme for that year – for 35 (7.0%) abstracts. Reporting was as a podium presentation for 275 (54.7%) abstracts, an e-poster for 205 (40.8%) abstracts, an instructional course lecture for 20 (4.0%) abstracts, a symposium for 2 (0.4%) abstracts, and a round table for 1 (0.2%) abstract.ResultsThe full-text publication rate was 35.6% overall and 47.1% (139 publications) for podium presentations. Mean time from podium or poster presentation at the SoFCOT meeting to full-text publication was 1.2 ± 1.5 years (range: −2.5 to 6.1 years). The full-text publications had 0.8 ± 2.3 (range: −6 to 11) more authors compared to the abstract. They appeared in 54 journals with a mean impact factor of 1.9 ± 1.3 (range: 0.25 to 13.77; median: 1.41; interquartile range: 1.26 to 2.47). Subgroup comparisons showed that full-text publication was more common for prospective than retrospective studies (50.0% versus 30.5%, p < 0.0001) and for studies showing a significant difference (48.6% versus 33.0%, p < 0.0001). Systematic reviews were more often published in full than were anecdotal case-reports. The full-text publication rate was also higher for studies reported as podium presentations than as e-posters (47.1% versus 17.6%, p < 0.0001). Finally, studies of orthopaedic surgery were more often published in full than were studies of trauma surgery (39.7% versus 28.2%, p = 0.033).DiscussionThe 5-year full-text publication rate of studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was consistent with previously reported data. The impact factors of the journals in which the studies were published are evidence of the high quality of the information shared at SoFCOT meetings.Level of evidenceIV, systematic retrospective analysis.