Upload
sezja
View
29
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
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?• Scoping the Abstract• Audience/Society for Abstract• The Title• The Abstract• The Review Process
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
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?
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?
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
Flow of Ideas in an Abstract
BackgroundBackground
Hypothesis/QuestionHypothesis/Question
TitleTitleResultsResults
AnswerAnswer
Methods/ Methods/ Study Study DesignDesign
What Makes an Abstract Easy to Read and Useful?
• Organization
• Simple language/sentences
• Structured format
• Critical data/magnitude of effects
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
Improving a TitleOn 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
Background
• 1 – 2 sentences• Why is the work important?• What is the gap in the literature?
Methods
• Subcomponents dependent on research methodology
• For clinical or health services project– Population– Design– Main outcomes– Data collection– Analytic approach
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)
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)
The Review Process
• Who reviews?
• How do abstracts get on programs?
• Review of PAS abstracts as an example
The Review Process• Reviewers get abstracts and grading sheets on line• Grading scale -
1. Best abstracts in category/topic area
2. Excellent - outstanding
3. Very good - excellent
4. Good - solid
5. Acceptable
6. Borderline acceptability
7. 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.
• Criteria to be considered for scoring
– Importance of topic
– Originality
– Scientific merit
– Quality of research design/data analysis
– Quality of presentation
The Review Process
• How much time will a reviewer spend grading your abstract?
A. 1 min C. 5 min
B. 3 min D. 10 min
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
The Review Process
• To get an abstract accepted
– Have good study
– Write simply and clearly
– Have clear question
– “Telegraph” critical elements
– Have clear conclusion
The Review Process