AOA
QUEENSLAND BRANCH ASM 2015
Registrar
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION
Form
Initial Abstract Presentations Friday 29 May 2015
Finalist Presentations Saturday 30 May 2015
Awards
Don Tuffley Award for Best Clinical Registrar Paper
Bill Crawford Award for Best Basic Science Registrar Paper
Requirements
Please use this form to submit Registrar Abstract (Includes Interns / RMO / Registrars)
•
After completing this form, please upload it to the Abstracts area of the conference website:
qld.aoa.org.au.
•
Paper or facsimile copies will not be accepted.
•
Abstract submissions must be received electronically by midnight (EST) on 12 April 2015.
•
All abstract submissions must include a declaration of interest.
•
The abstract must not exceed 450 words (excluding title, authors and institution)
Information
• Projection type: 16:9 Ratio
•
Computers will be provided running Powerpoint for PC / Keynote & Powerpoint for Mac.
•
Podium timers will be provided. Screens will switched off after expiration of allotted time (TBA).
Abstract enquiries – C Vertullo E chris.vertullo@icloud.com
Upload enquiries – Alison Fallon: T +61 2 8071 8014 | E alison.fallon@aoa.org.au
Section One: Applicant Details
1. Applicant’s name
(Last name, first name – eg Smith, John)
2. Hospital/institution/ Current Position
3. Preferred email address
4. Preferred mailing address
5. Preferred phone number
6. Declaration of interest
Please choose one:
Mark with Y
a) None of the authors has received any payment or consideration
from any source for the conduct of this study.
b) In relation to the conduct of this study, one or more of the authors
is in receipt of a research grant from a non-commercial source.
c) In relation to the conduct of this study, one or more of the authors
is in receipt of a research grant from a commercial source.
d) In relation to the conduct of this study, one or more of the authors
have received, or are likely to receive direct material benefits.
AOA QLDASM2014 Abstract Submission
2
Section Two: Abstract Details
7. Title of project
In CAPITALS
8. Institution(s)
1–4 centres where the work originated
Give only institution name and city – eg Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane
9. Describe the Study Design using the Appendix information. eg Randomised Controlled
Trial or Therapeutic Case Series, etc.
10. Describe the Level of Evidence of your study (Level I- IV) & why using Appendix
11. Presenter/ Registrar’s Role in Study. (Place X to all that are appropriate)
Concept/
Hypothesis
Study Design
Date Collection
12. Co- Researcher’s Role(s) in Study (Place Initials as appropriate)
Concept/
Study Design
Date Collection
Hypothesis
AOA QLDASM2015 Abstract Submission
Data Analysis
Data Analysis
3
13. Body of Abstract
Maximum 400 words, excluding headings.
Do not include graphs or diagrams
Use abbreviations only for common terms; for uncommon terms give abbreviation in brackets
after first full use of the term.
Introduction & Aims
Hypothesis
Methods
Results
Conclusions
14. Confirm word count – must not exceed 400 words
Body of abstract only, excluding headings and including references
15. Abstract Submission for:
AOA QLDASM2014 Abstract Submission
4
Friday 29 May 2015 – Registrar Paper
Appendix : Study Design Types & Levels of Evidence
Modified From:
J. Karlsson, R. G. Marx, N. Nakamura, and M. Bhandari, “A Practical Guide to Research: Design,
Execution, and Publication,” Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, vol. 27,
no. 4, pp. S1–S112, Apr. 2011.
A Study Designs Defined
Meta-analysis: A combination of all of the results in a systematic review using accepted statistical
methodology.
Systematic review: On the basis of a specific clinical question, an extensive literature search is
conducted identifying studies of sound methodology. These studies are then reviewed, assessed, and
summarized according to the predetermined criteria related to the question at hand.
Randomized (clinical) control trial: A prospective, analytic, experimental study that uses data
generated typically in the clinical environment. A group of similar individuals are divided into 2 or
more groups (1 acting as a control and the other[s] receiving the treatment[s]) and the outcomes are
compared at follow-up.
Prospective, blind comparison to a gold standard: To show the efficacy of
a test, patients with varying degrees of an illness undergo both the test being investigated and the
“gold standard” test.
Cohort study: A large population with a specific exposure or treatment is followed over time.
The outcomes of this group are compared with a similar but unaffected group. These studies are
observational, and they are not as reliable because the 2 groups may differ for reasons aside from
the exposure.
Case-control study: Patients who have a specific outcome or condition are compared with those
who do not. This is a retrospective approach used to identify possible exposures. These are often
less reliable than RCTs and cohort studies because their findings are often correlational rather than
causative.
Case series/report: Reports on the treatment of an individual patient are reviewed. These have no
statistical validity because they use no control group for comparison. Case reports do, however,
AOA QLDASM2015 Abstract Submission
5
have a role for novel and rare presentations, because no large populations exist in these cases.
B Study Level of Evidence Defined
Level I
Therapeutic studies
• RCTs with (a) significant difference or (b) no significant difference but narrow confidence
intervals • Systematic reviews of Level I RCTs (studies were homogeneous) Prognostic studies
1. Prospective studies
2. Systematic review of Level I studies
Diagnostic studies
1. Testing of previously developed diagnostic criteria in series of consecutive patients (with
universally applied reference “gold” standard)
2. Systematic review of Level I studies
Economic and decision analyses studies
1. Clinically sensible costs and alternatives; values obtained from many studies; multiway sensitivity analyses
2. Systematic review of Level I studies
Level II
Therapeutic studies
• Prospective cohort study • Lesser-quality RCT (e.g., �80% follow-up, no blinding, or improper randomization) • Systematic review of Level II studies or Level I studies with inconsistent results Prognostic studies
1. Retrospective study
2. Untreated controls from an RCT
3. Systematic review of Level II studies
Diagnostic studies
1. Development of diagnostic criteria on basis of consecutive patients (with universally applied
reference “gold” standard)
2. Systematic review of Level I and II studies
Economic and decision analyses studies
1. Clinically sensible costs and alternatives; values obtained from limited studies; multiway
sensitivity analyses
2. Systematic review of Level II studies
AOA QLDASM2014 Abstract Submission
6
Level III
Therapeutic studies
1. Case-control study
2. Retrospective cohort study
3. Systematic review of Level III studies
Diagnostic studies
• Study of nonconsecutive patients (without con-sistently applied reference “gold” standard)
• Systematic review of Level III studies Economic and decision analyses studies
1 Analyses based on limited alternatives and costs; poor estimates 2 Systematic review of Level III studies Level IV
Therapeutic studies
Case series (no, or historical, control group)
Prognostic studies
Case series
Diagnostic studies
1. Case-control study
2. Poor reference standard
Economic and decision analyses studies
No sensitivity analyses
Level V
Therapeutic studies
Expert opinion
Prognostic studies
Expert opinion
Diagnostic studies
Expert opinion
Economic and decision analyses studies
Expert opinion
AOA QLDASM2015 Abstract Submission
7