Guidelines for Abstract Review

Background and Objectives sections
 Is rationale for the study appropriately justified?
 Is the study question clearly stated in the Objectives section?
Methods, Analysis, and Results sections
 Is the study design appropriate for the hypothesis or question?
 Are the sampling procedures adequately described and appropriate?
 Are inclusion and exclusion criteria explicitly stated?
 Are issues of bias (eg, information bias, selection bias, confounding) addressed?
 Are issues of reliability and validity of measures addressed, if appropriate?
 Are the methods the most rigorous for the type of study design? (see Table 2)
 Are the statistical or qualitative analyses appropriate for the study design and the best that could have been used?
 Are the results likely to influence delivery of health services, clinical care, education of trainees, research endeavors, or public policy?
 Is this a topic that conference attendees are very interested in hearing about?
 Does the abstract present new insights or offer a better approach than previous studies performed on the same or similar research questions?
Quality of presentation
 Is the abstract clearly written and understandable?
 Has the author followed the directions for submission?
 Do precision and formatting of numerical results and statistics meet standard guidelines, and are they presented consistently throughout the abstract?
 Are themes and interpretations described clearly for a qualitative study?
 Is the content placed in the proper section of the structured abstract (eg, results are not in the Methods section or methods in the Results section)?
 Are vague words, such as “substantially,” avoided?