Presented by the ORS New Investigator Mentoring Committee

Best Foot Forward: Writing a Compelling

ORS Abstract

Lou Soslowsky, PhDPenn Center for Musculoskeletal DisordersMcKay Orthopaedic Research LaboratoryUniversity of Pennsylvania

Tamara Alliston, PhDChair, ORS New Investigator Mentoring Comm.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of California San Francisco

Presented by the ORS New Investigator Mentoring Committee

Best Foot Forward: Writing a Compelling

ORS Abstract

Lou Soslowsky, PhDPenn Center for Musculoskeletal DisordersMcKay Orthopaedic Research LaboratoryUniversity of Pennsylvania

Overview

• Critical elements of a successful and clear abstract

• Qualities of outstanding abstracts

• Common reasons abstracts are rejected and how to avoid them

• Analysis of award-winning 2012 ORS abstract

• Information about the ORS abstract format, submission, and review process

Goals of an abstract• Communicate your research to the scientific

community • Attract an audience – via podium or poster

presentation

• Establish a record of accomplishment

• Convey technical detail and results

• Place your work within its scientific context

• Communicate the clinical implications of your work

Qualities of a Standout Abstract

• Important and timely research question• Compelling data

• Clearly stated hypothesis• Clearly stated answer

• Well-written text and attractive figures• Polished and proof-read document

1. Research

2. Message

3. Presentation

Step 1: Outstanding Research

• Choose an important research topic PRIOR to initiation of the study

• Choose high-impact questions PRIOR to initiation of the study

• Choose rigorous methods carefully PRIOR to initiation of the study

• Ensure that you have sufficient resources (personnel, time, money, etc.) PRIOR to initiation of the study

• Ask colleagues about your ideas PRIOR to initiation of the study

• Perform a NEW, thorough literature review PRIOR to initiation of the study

• Read the primary literature, not just the review articles/book chapters PRIOR to initiation of the study

Step 1: Outstanding Research

• Consult a statistician PRIOR to the initiation of the study

• Outline study design and expected results PRIOR to initiation of the study

• Note that there is A LOT to do PRIOR to starting the study

Step 1: Outstanding Research

• Think about and discuss with colleagues what your data reveal.

• Articulate a hypothesis and conclusion that best convey the main idea of your work.

• The hypothesis of your abstract may not be identical to the one you set out to answer.

• The conclusion should match and answer the hypothesis

• The rest of the abstract supports this primary message.

Step 2: Know your message

• Successful abstracts typically follow a conventional structure.

• This structure serves the reader by helping them find the information they need

• Introduction• Methods• Results• Discussion• Significance

• A writer can take advantage of this structure to better communicate their message

• Start early, get input from others, and proofread

Step 3: Presentation

Introduction (typically 5-7 sentences)

• Establish the importance of the subject• Explain what is known• State what is unknown, holes in knowledge, or

what’s problematic with the known• Introduce key terms or ideas with minimal jargon• Conclude with a clear statement of the research

objective, questions, hypothesis• Do not provide a review of the field• Present focused rationale leading to the

hypothesis

Materials and Methods• Materials

– What was used/examined?– Demographics, approvals (IRB, IACUC)

• Methods– What was done to answer the question?– How was it done?– How was the data treated/analyzed?

– Sample size– Statistical analysis

Results• Present results in decreasing order of

importance (or chronologically, if that makes more sense), following the research questions at the end of the Introduction

• Avoid figures or tables as the subjects or objects of sentences

Results (continued)• State the major results in the text (refer to figures

and tables parenthetically, to avoid including data in the text)

• Do not duplicate data in the text, figures, and tables

• Probably room for 2-4 figures/tables (for most important/interesting results)

Figures/Tables• Most visual way to present key results

and significant findings (figures)

• Great way to communicate findings to reviewers (who may be pressed for time during review process)

• Space-efficient way to present a lot of quantitative results (tables)

Discussion• Describe how your data support the answers

to the research questions or hypothesis

• Establish what is new and important by comparing your findings with those of others

• End with a clear statement (e.g., the implications of your findings) or with speculations based on the answers to your questions

Primary Reasons for Rejection

• Research question already asked/answered in literature

• Focus of population insufficient (patients, cadaveric material, animals, etc.)

• Fundamental flaw in methodology

• Sample size insufficient

Primary Reasons for Rejection (continued)

• Data obtained does not address research question

• Conclusions not supported by data

• Research question not deemed to be important/impactful

• Poorly written

Summary 1. Do your homework PRIOR to study

initiation 2. Research high impact questions 3. Focus your study and its presentation 4. Present a clear message – hypothesis

and answer 5. Ensure work is put in context

Thank you

www.med.upenn.edu/pcmd

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING AN

ORS ABSTRACT

Tamara Alliston, PhDChair, ORS New Investigator Mentoring CommitteeDepartment of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of California San Francisco

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

Example: NIRA ORS Abstract

Permission to use this abstract was granted by Joerg Holstein, M.D. (June 2012)

NOTE: This abstract is from the ORS 2012 Annual Meeting and in the old format.

>50% Results & Figures<25% Introduction

25% Methods

25% Discussion & Significance

NOTE: This abstract is from the ORS 2012 Annual Meeting and in the old format.

Methods

The ‘n’ and statistics cancommunicate your level of confidence in the data.

Results

Clear, concise, and logical presentationof the facts.

Include references to Figures.

FiguresCommon but not required in ORS abstracts

Visually evident

Can effectively illustratea dramatic result

Require legends and legible figure notation

Introduce & define key terms

Clearly state the hypothesis

Clearly state the hypothesis

Discussion and SignificanceAnswer the question posed by the hypothesis

Hint: you can use the same words

Discussion and SignificanceAnswer the question posed by the hypothesis

Hint: you can use the same words

Discussion and SignificanceAnswer the question posed by the hypothesis

Hint: you can use the same words

Discussion and Significance

Place work in scientific and clinical context

Communicate your level of certainty

Abstract Submission Site

Abstract Submission SiteSubmission Deadline:

September 9, 2013 5pm Central Time

New Online System

The Submission ProcessTo submit the abstract you will need: • Contact

information for presenter

• Coauthor emails, affiliations, and disclosures

Start early! It always takes longer than you think.

A sample abstract proof

from the ORS

Abstract Submission

Site

Confirmation of SubmissionAutomatic error checkPayment“Your abstract (Control ID: 2014-A-21-ORS) has been submitted.”

Review My Work

Confirmation of SubmissionPrint or E-mail AbstractUnder “Review My Work”,Bottom of page:Option to print your submissionE-mail confirmation of submission to yourself and authors

The Review Process

• 250 ORS members serve as expert reviewers • Each abstract is reviewed and scored by 4 reviewers

• Reviewers are blind to authors and affiliations• If a conflict of interest arises, reviewers are reassigned

• Reviewers are selected based on the first 3 Keywords• The order of the Keywords matters!

Hint: Be sure to select the “right” Keywords and the order matters, so put the most relevant Keywords first.

Reviewers

Conflicts

Assignment Process

The Review Process.

Superior -1Good – 2Acceptable – 3Marginal – 4Poor – 5(Written comments will be required by Reviewer when giving score of 4 or 5)

Podium sessions: abstracts scoring “1.0” to “2.0”Poster sessions: abstracts scoring 2.0-3.0 and 1.0-1.9 indicating poster only. All abstracts with a 4 or 5 - Topic Chairs and Program committee will review explanation of score given by reviewer.

Scoring

Presentations

Summary

• Important and timely research question• Compelling data

• Clearly stated hypothesis• Clearly stated answer

• Well-written text and attractive figures• Polished and proof-read document

1. Research

2. Message

3. Presentation

New Investigator Mentoring Events at ORS Annual Meeting in New Orleans

• Meet the Mentors Lunch• Professional Advancement Series:

Career Transitions: What Makes a Great Post-Doctoral Fellowship Work-Life Balance as a Woman in Orthopaedic Research Publishing Your Idea

• Poster Tours• Grant Writing Workshop• ORS Mentoring Website