1 / 21

Abstract Writing for Scientific Meetings

Abstract Writing for Scientific Meetings. Maria Britto, MD, MPH Fellows Rounds November 11, 2008. With thanks to Alan Jobe. Definition. Abstrahere (Latin) = abs - from + trahere - to draw The essence of a larger content of material. Overview. Why Submit an Abstract?

sezja
Download Presentation

Abstract Writing for Scientific Meetings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Abstract Writing for Scientific Meetings Maria Britto, MD, MPH Fellows Rounds November 11, 2008 With thanks to Alan Jobe

  2. Definition Abstrahere (Latin) = abs - from + trahere - to draw The essence of a larger content of material

  3. Overview • Why Submit an Abstract? • Scoping the Abstract • Audience/Society for Abstract • The Title • The Abstract • The Review Process

  4. Why submit an abstract? • Finished project - advertise to field • Finished project - discuss with colleagues prior to publication • Unfinished project - present as work in progress • Unfinished project - anticipate more data before presentation • Opportunity for “in training” presentation

  5. Scoping the Abstract • Can only make one or two major points • What data do you have? • What analyses are complete or can be completed at least 2 weeks before the deadline?

  6. Audience for Abstract • Why are you submitting? • What will you learn? • What content/context is best for audience? • What “section of society’ will be receptive?

  7. Writing the Structured Abstract • Title: Short/Informative Animals/human; in vivo/in vitro Type of trial • Why: Background/rationale • What: Question/hypothesis • How: Methods/study design • What Happened: Results • Punch Line: Answer question/hypothesis

  8. Flow of Ideas in an Abstract Background Hypothesis/Question Methods/ Study Design Title Results Answer

  9. What Makes an Abstract Easy to Read and Useful? • Organization • Simple language/sentences • Structured format • Critical data/magnitude of effects

  10. The Title: Important! • What should be in the title? • Type of study (RCT, cohort, etc.) • Approach (e.g. in vitro, imaging) • Species (human, rat), if important for your audience • What should be the tone of the title? • Active and declarative • Avoid - • Studies concerning . . . • Effects of . . . • What should be the length of the title? • Read instructions to authors

  11. Improving a Title On the Antibacterial Action of Cultures of a Penicillin, With Special Reference to Their Use in the Isolation of B. Influenzae (Alexander Fleming, Br. J. Exp. Path., 1929) Filtrates of Penicillin are Bacteriocidal at High Dilution and Not Toxic An Antibacterial Activity from Filtrates of Penicillin Mold A Potent Antibacterial Activity from Filtrates of Penicillin Mold

  12. Background • 1 – 2 sentences • Why is the work important? • What is the gap in the literature?

  13. Methods • Subcomponents dependent on research methodology • For clinical or health services project • Population • Design • Main outcomes • Data collection • Analytic approach

  14. Results • Be as quantitative as possible • Be sure to report on main outcomes described in methods • Abbreviations ok • Tables and figures ok for some meetings (check directions)

  15. Conclusion • 1 -2 sentences • Do not restate results • Should follow from your results • May include speculation or next step (read abstracts from previous meetings of the same group)

  16. The Review Process • Who reviews? • How do abstracts get on programs? • Review of PAS abstracts as an example

  17. The Review Process • Reviewers get abstracts and grading sheets on line • Grading scale - • Best abstracts in category/topic area • Excellent - outstanding • Very good - excellent • Good - solid • Acceptable • Borderline acceptability • Do not accept X. Deferred - paper is from reviews lab, department, program, or institution Ratings 1-4: Imply that he abstract is worth of presentation. Ratings 5-6: Might still merit presentation if the literature on the topic is inconsistent or skimpy, or if the observation is potentially provocative. Rating 7: Implies strongly that an abstract must not be presented.

  18. The Review Process • Criteria to be considered for scoring • Importance of topic • Originality • Scientific merit • Quality of research design/data analysis • Quality of presentation

  19. The Review Process • How much time will a reviewer spend grading your abstract? • 1 min C. 5 min • 3 min D. 10 min

  20. The Review Process A bit of reality testing • 100 abst x 1 min = 1 hr 40 min • 100 abst x 3 min = 5 hr • 100 abst x 5 min = 8 hr 20 min • 100 abst x 10 min = 16 hr 40 min

  21. The Review Process • To get an abstract accepted • Have good study • Write simply and clearly • Have clear question • “Telegraph” critical elements • Have clear conclusion

More Related