How to write an ICS/IUGA conference abstract
Rufus Cartwright
0
1
2
4
Kari A. O. Tikkinen
0
1
2
4
Mark E. Vierhout
0
1
2
4
Heinz Koelbl
0
1
2
4
0
M. E. Vierhout Department of Urogynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre
,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
1
K. A. O. Tikkinen Department of Urology and Clinical Research Institute HUCH Ltd., Helsinki University Central Hospital
,
Helsinki, Finland
2
R. Cartwright Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Imperial College London
,
London, UK
3
) Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Hammersmith Hospital Campus
, Du Cane Road, W12 0NN London,
UK
4
H. Koelbl Frauen Klinik,
University Hospital
, Mainz,
Germany
Introduction This article aims to condense the lectures and discussions from workshops on good reporting at IUGA Como 2009 and ICS San Francisco 2009, providing practical advice for the novice researcher summarising their data for the first time. Conclusions Drafting an abstract can be a time consuming process. Formal guidance, such as CONSORT and STROBE, exists for the kinds of information that should be included regarding almost all designs of clinical trials. Follow the abstract submission rules closely to avoid outright rejection. Plan to highlight the novelty, scientific merit and clinical impact of the work. Try not to overstate the importance of the findings. Do not forget to publish the work in a peer reviewed journal.
-
Presentations at international scientific conferences such as
ICS and IUGA are the most important route for early
dissemination and discussion of research findings. Indeed
for many studies that never reach full text publication [1], and
in many regions where access to health care publications is
limited, the conference abstract may be the only easily
available record of the research. As if preparing a succinct
and accurate summary of ones research is not challenging
enough, there is also a certain art to writing an abstract that
will appeal to conference scientific committees.
Over the last decade getting work accepted for oral
presentation at either ICS or IUGA became increasingly difficult
(Fig. 1). In 2009 the ICS meeting in San Francisco received
1,003 abstract submissions and was able to accept only 284 for
oral presentation. The IUGA meeting was usually more
forgiving, with the 2009 Como meeting receiving 477
submissions and accepting 200 oral presentations.
In 2009 we held workshops at both meetings on good
reporting of research findings. Speakers included chairs and
members of ICS and IUGA scientific committees, specialty
journal editors and expert methodologists. With the April 1
deadline for submissions to the joint 2010 ICS/IUGA
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Fig. 1 Total abstract submissions to the ICS meeting 20002009
(Data courtesy of Dan Snowdon)
meeting in Toronto looming, this article aims to condense
the lectures and discussions from those workshops into
practical advice for the novice researcher facing the
daunting task of summarising their data for the first time.
When to write an abstract
It is an important principle that abstracts presented at ICS or
IUGA should not have been previously presented
internationally, nor should the abstracts have been indexed in a
published journal. Every year there is some overlap of
presentations between the two meetings, as well as with
other urological or gynaecological meetings, which wastes
the precious resource of podium time. It is a more strictly
enforced rule that studies that have been published in full,
even as an e-publication, should not be presented. Every
year some abstracts slip through, despite prior publication
[2, 3]. The reverse situation occurs when researchers
choose to submit an abstract before conducting any
analysis, or based on analysis of interim results. Each
abstract should contain original data, not merely a
description of methodology. Reports of interim analyses may be
justified on safety grounds, but should ideally be led by an
independent data monitoring committee. Particularly for
randomised trials, conducting interim efficacy analyses
before completion of recruitment jeopardises the power
calculation of the study and compromises the equipoise of
the researchers [4]. Even for observational studies, waiting
for full recruitment and complete follow-up is usually
associated with a more powerful message.
Every year, very large numbers of abstracts are
submitted in the final hours before abstract submission closes. The
writing of a conference abstract is usually the first chance
for multiple authors to synthesise and reflect on complex
findings. Sufficient time should therefore be allotted for
multiple revisions, with a chance for all listed authors to
approve the final draft. Working right up to the deadline
may lead to gaps in the analysis and unnecessary
approximations. Although we have ourselves each been
guilty of last minute submissions, we would recommend
leaving as much time as possible for abstract preparation.
Find appropriate reporting gui (...truncated)