The research abstract: worth getting it right.
BACKGROUND
Scientific merit and clarity are critical in evaluation of quality in research. We hypothesised that avoidable errors of presentation adversely impact on abstract selection for scientific meetings.


OBJECTIVE
To prospectively evaluate compliance with abstract guidelines among abstracts submitted to a national surgical scientific meeting.


METHODS
Compliance of all submitted abstracts with 13 instructions to authors was compared using ANOVA and Chi-squared tests. Results are expressed as mean (standard deviation, range).


RESULTS
Of 45 abstracts submitted, only 8 (17%) complied with all guidelines. Rejected abstracts were less concise than accepted abstracts (280.5 +/- 73.8 words vs. 244.2 +/- 42.5; p=0.006) and were more likely to be rejected (chi2 = 8.67, 1 df, p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the number of errors in accepted (1.6 [1.43, 0-4]) versus rejected (2.4 [1.87, 0-7], ANOVA; p=0.217) abstracts. All late submissions (30%) were rejected. Nine abstracts (20%) contained statistical errors or omissions.


CONCLUSIONS
Succinct presentation may reflect clarity of focus or increased writing experience. Reviewers favour concise abstracts. Concise presentation and timely submission are easily achieved and increase the likelihood of research acceptance for scientific meetings.
Mcnamara
RCSI Department of General Surgery, Wateford Regional Hospital, Ireland. deborahmcnamara@netscape.net
Grannell
M
M
Watson
R G
RG
Bouchier-Hayes
D J
DJ
D000043:Abstracting and Indexing; D019983:Guideline Adherence; D006801:Humans; D012106:Research; D014956:Writing / Q000592:standards*