The research abstract: worth getting it right

Background Scientific merit and clarity are critical in evaluation of quali ty in research. We hypothesised that avoidable errors of presentation adver sely impact on abstract selection for scientific meetings. Aim To prospectively evaluate compliance with abstract guidelines among abs tracts submitted to a national surgical scientific meeting. Methods Compliance of all submitted abstracts with 13 instructions to autho rs 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 guideline s. 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 (chi (2) = 8.67, 1 df, p <0.05). There was no significant difference betwe en 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 rej ected. 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 presentati on and timely submission are easily achieved and increase the likelihood of research acceptance for scientific meetings.