Lou Soslowsky, PhD
Tamara Alliston, PhD
Penn Center for Musculoskeletal Disorders
McKay Orthopaedic Research Laboratory
University of Pennsylvania
Chair, ORS New Investigator Mentoring Comm.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
University of California San Francisco
Presented by the ORS New Investigator Mentoring Committee
Lou Soslowsky, PhD
Penn Center for Musculoskeletal Disorders
McKay Orthopaedic Research Laboratory
University of Pennsylvania
Presented by the ORS New Investigator Mentoring Committee
• 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
•
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
1. Research
•
Important and timely research question
•
Compelling data
2. Message
•
Clearly stated hypothesis
•
Clearly stated answer
3. Presentation
•
Well-written text and attractive figures
•
Polished and proof-read document
•
Choose an important research topic PRIOR to
initiation of the study
•
Choose high-impact
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
questions
PRIOR
to
•
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
•
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
•
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.
•
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
•
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
– 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
•
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
•
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)
•
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)
•
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
•
Research question already asked/answered in
literature
•
Focus of population insufficient (patients,
cadaveric material, animals, etc.)
•
Fundamental flaw in methodology
•
Sample size insufficient
•
Data obtained does not address research question
•
Conclusions not supported by data
•
Research question not deemed to be
important/impactful
•
Poorly written

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

www.med.upenn.edu/pcmd
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Tamara Alliston, PhD
Chair, ORS New Investigator Mentoring Committee
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
University of California San Francisco
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.
<25% Introduction
>50% Results & Figures
25% Methods
25% Discussion &
Significance
NOTE: This abstract is from the
ORS 2012 Annual Meeting and in the
old format.
The ‘n’ and
statistics can
communicate
your level
of confidence
in the data.
Clear, concise, and
logical presentation
of the facts.
Include references
to Figures.
Common but not
required in ORS
abstracts
Visually evident
Can effectively illustrate
a dramatic result
Require legends and
legible figure notation
Answer the question posed by the hypothesis
Hint: you can use the same words
Answer the question posed by the hypothesis
Hint: you can use the same words
Answer the question posed by the hypothesis
Hint: you can use the same words
Communicate
your level of
certainty
Place work in
scientific and
clinical context
Submission Deadline:
September 9, 2013
5pm Central Time
New Online System
To 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
Automatic error check
Payment
“Your abstract
(Control ID: 2014-A-21-ORS)
has been submitted.”
Review My Work
Print or E-mail Abstract
Under “Review My Work”,
Bottom of page:
Option to print your
submission
E-mail confirmation of
submission to yourself and
authors
Reviewers
• 250 ORS members serve as expert reviewers
• Each abstract is reviewed and scored by 4 reviewers
Conflicts
• Reviewers are blind to authors and affiliations
• If a conflict of interest arises, reviewers are reassigned
Assignment Process
• 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.
Scoring
.
Superior -1
Good – 2
Acceptable – 3
Marginal – 4
Poor – 5
(Written comments will be required by Reviewer
when giving score of 4 or 5)
Presentations
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.
1. Research
•
Important and timely research question
•
Compelling data
2. Message
•
Clearly stated hypothesis
•
Clearly stated answer
3. Presentation
•
Well-written text and attractive figures
•
Polished and proof-read document
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