Writing Good Abstracts

Abstract

Writing an abstract means to extract and summarize (AB - absolutely, STR - straightforward, ACT - actual data presentation and interpretation). Thousands of abstracts are submitted to stroke conferences each year. The following suggestions may improve the chances of your work being selected for presentation, and to communicate results in the most efficient and unambiguous way. TITLE AND STRUCTURE: Make the title dynamic and informative, rather than descriptive. Structure the abstract following the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) principle for your future original paper where background would become Introduction and conclusions would enter Discussion. Select the appropriate category for submission carefully. This determines which experts grade the abstract and the session where your competitors represent their work. If selected appropriately, your abstract is more likely to be graded by peers with similar interests and familiarity with your work or field. Methods should describe the study design and tools of data acquisition shortly, not data.
Provide data that answer the research question. Describe most important data with numbers and statistics. Make your point with data, not speculations and opinions. Abbreviations should be avoided and only be used after they have been spelled out or defined. Common mistakes include failure to state the hypothesis, rationale for the study, sample size and conclusions. Highlight the novelty of your work by carefully chosen straightforward wording.
Conclusions have to be based on the present study findings. Make sure your abstract is clear, concise and follows all rules. Show your draft to colleagues for critique, and if you are not a native English speaker show it to a person who can improve/correct your text. Remember that accepted abstracts of completed original research should be followed by published original papers - if this is not intended or fails, it may indicate an impaired ability to succeed in scientific writing and an academic career.

Full text

Fax +41 61 306 12 34
E-Mail karger@karger.ch
www.karger.com
Special Article
Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256–259
DOI: 10.1159/000098324
Writing Good Abstracts
Andrei V. Alexandrov
a
Michael G. Hennerici
b
a
Stroke Research Program, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Ariz. , USA;
b
European Stroke Conference
state the hypothesis, rationale for the study, sample size and
conclusions. Highlight the novelty of your work by carefully
chosen straightforward wording. Conclusions: Conclusions
have to be based on the present study findings. Make sure
your abstract is clear, concise and follows all rules. Show your
draft to colleagues for critique, and if you are not a native
English speaker show it to a person who can improve/correct
your text. Remember that accepted abstracts of completed
original research should be followed by published original
papers – if this is not intended or fails, it may indicate an im-
paired ability to succeed in scientific writing and an academ-
ic career. Copyright © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
Congratulations! You joined a stroke research team,
got your first data set and analyzed a database by yourself
using statistical software or, preferably, together with an
expert in biostatistics. You discussed data and statistics
with your colleagues. Your mentor tells you that you got
results worth reporting. It is time to draft an abstract.
Although the recommendations below come from expe-
riences in writing about stroke, they could be applied to
any medical field.
Wondering where to start? You should have taken
notes when you conceived the project, selected methods,
analyzed data and came up with conclusions while work-
Key Words
Abstracts, stroke  Peer review  Outcome
Abstract
I n t r o d u c t i o n : Writing an abstract means to extract and sum-
marize (AB – ab solutely, STR – str aightforward, ACT – act ual
data presentation and interpretation). Thousands of ab-
stracts are submitted to stroke conferences each year. The
following suggestions may improve the chances of your
work being selected for presentation, and to communicate
results in the most efficient and unambiguous way. Title and
Structure: Make the title dynamic and informative, rather
than descriptive. Structure the abstract following the IMRaD
(Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) principle for
your future original paper where background would be-
come Introduction and conclusions would enter Discussion.
Select the appropriate category for submission carefully.
This determines which experts grade the abstract and the
session where your competitors represent their work. If se-
lected appropriately, your abstract is more likely to be grad-
ed by peers with similar interests and familiarity with your
work or field. Methods should describe the study design and
tools of data acquisition shortly, not data. Results: Provide
data that answer the research question. Describe most im-
portant data with numbers and statistics. Make your point
with data, not speculations and opinions. Abbreviations
should be avoided and only be used after they have been
spelled out or defined. Common mistakes include failure to
Received: December 6, 2006
Accepted: December 6, 2006
Published online: December 29, 2006
Dr. A.V. Alexandrov, Director
Stroke Research and Neurosonology Program, Barrow Neurological Institute
Suite 300 Neurology, 500 West Thomas Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85013 (USA)
E-Mail avalexandrov@att.net
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
1015–9770/07/0234–0256$23.50/0
Accessible online at:
www.karger.com/ced

AB-STR-ACT
Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256–259
257
ing with your mentor and co-authors in the past several
months. If not, ask your mentor again what the research
question was, why the project is important, how subjects
and methods were selected, why certain tools of analysis
were most appropriate, and what the meaning of the re-
sults is. And write these thoughts down, particularly if
you are new to research or trying to multi-task on sev-
eral projects.
Think about the title of your abstract since it sells your
submission. Make the title dynamic and conclusive, rath-
er than descriptive. Try to avoid questions in the title,
unless the issue remains unsettled or you came up with a
clear answer. Think about the ‘take home’ message you’d
like to deliver with your abstract.
Writing an abstract means to extract and summarize
(think AB – ab solutely, STR – str aightforward, ACT – ac-
t ual data presentation and interpretation). Introductory
statements sum up what is known or remains unsettled
in the field, and a goal of your study. Try to compress
these messages into one or two sentences. Thousands of
abstracts are submitted to stroke conferences each year.
Follow the European Stroke Conference [1] or the Amer-
ican Stroke Association recommendations [2] , and you
may improve the chances of your work being selected for
presentation. Preparation of conference abstracts is main-
ly a responsibility of the researcher with virtually no pos-
sibilities for a rater of conference abstracts to check for
data quality (there is nothing else available, no manu-
script). Abstracts linked to scientific papers are peer re-
viewed, and it is possible to assess if the abstract ade-
quately reflects what is stated and concluded in the man-
uscript body. Although this paper mainly provides advice
how to prepare a conference abstract, similar principles
can be applied to drafting abstracts for original paper
submissions, though format and requirements may differ
between peer-reviewed journals. In any case, the goal is
to report and convey research findings in the most effi-
cient and unambiguous way.
All authors must have contributed to the work, ap-
proved the text and given permission to submit the ab-
stract including copyrights to the conference publishers.
The presenting authors should be named first – if the ab-
stract is submitted for oral presentation, this person
should be able to discuss your contribution in a lively dis-
cussion – both from his knowledge of the subject as well
as the conference language. Carefully consider specific
regulations made by the conference organizers which are
different for many meetings in style and context. If you
do not adhere to these rules, your submission is at high
risk to fail.
Methods
Various scientific conferences may provide different rules re-
garding the recommended structure of abstract submission. Keep
in mind that whatever the rules are, you must follow up the con-
ference abstract with an original manuscript submission. We view
the conference abstract and the final original manuscript abstract
as part of the same process. So, try to make the first one as good
as the final one.
Unstructured abstracts challenge quick understanding what
was accomplished in the project. A structured abstract has advan-
tages [3, 4] and can include Introduction (or Background and
Purpose), Methods, Results and Conclusions. This closely follows
the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion)
principle introduced early in the 20th century [4] and currently
used in about two thirds of structured abstracts published in ma-
jor medical journals [5, 6] . This format is recommended for orig-
inal papers [7, 8] where D stands for discussion instead of conclu-
sions in your abstract. Even if structured abstracts could appear
longer, they are considered more informative and judged to be
clearer by their readers [9] .
When drafting the first sections of the abstract, think about
where you are going with this, i.e. key results and conclusions. Ask
your mentor and co-authors for suggestions. Avoid writing points
for discussion in your abstract, or statements like ‘this is the first
study to demonstrate …’. Chances are that ten other groups are
doing similar projects and five more have already presented their
results at meetings you did not attend. To overcome the initial
‘writer’s cramp’, i.e. the mental inability to start scientific writing,
you may download an abstract on a similar subject or comparable
study design that was published in proceedings of a previous
stroke conference or a peer-reviewed paper. Abstracts presented
at major international meetings are generally of high quality since
they passed competitive review with less than 30% chance of ac-
ceptance. Look how previous authors described their subjects and
methods, and follow the lead: after all, imitation is the best form
of flattery. Add specifics of your patient population so that re-
viewers can understand the novelty or applicability of your find-
ings. Be specific, yet brief. Remember, space (number of words or
characters allowed) is limited and so is the readers’ and reviewer’s
attention span. Reviewers often have to rate 1 100 abstracts, not
all are native English speakers and they appreciate a clear, simple
and straightforward style strengthening the originality of your
work and statistically sound presentation of the results reported.
State the type of study conducted, i.e. retrospective analysis,
case series, cohort, phase I or II clinical trial. Describe subject se-
lection criteria and data collection tools concisely, yet with enough
details for peers to understand what was done. There is no need
to add a literature reference that describes study methods; it is
often not even wanted. As many conferences tend to avoid peer
reviewer’s bias, anonymous reviews are common (e.g. for many
years for the European Stroke Conference). Thus, any hints at the
organization submitting the abstract are considered unfair and
against the rules. Avoid presenting actual data in this section, i.e.
number of subjects and their baseline characteristics. Presenta-
tion of data belongs to the Results section. Instead, describe scales
or methods used for assessment and recruitment as well as out-
comes or dependent variables.

Alexandrov /Hennerici
Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256–259
258
Protection of research subjects is implied, yet often omitted in
abstracts due to space limitations. You have to have a local ethics
committee approval before study initiation. With abstract re-
ports, it is assumed that this is the case. When you present data at
a meeting, clearly mention local ethics or institutional review
board approval and informed consent signed by participants for
human studies.
The most important factors for abstract acceptance to a presti-
gious and competitive meeting are the quality, novelty, reliability
and scientific or clinical importance of your work. Also, a bias was
noted that reviewers may favor well-written abstracts like those
submitted from the USA or English-speaking countries [10] , so if
you are not a native English-speaking person, show your draft to
those who can edit spelling, grammar and style. Clearly state the
type of study design that largely implies the choice of statistical
analysis tools and saves space for the following key section.
Results
Your results are the most important part of the ab-
stract. Present them clearly, avoid long and confusing sen-
tences, and follow simple logics. Start here by describing
your study subjects with actual numbers for study demo-
graphics. Then lead the reader to the main findings.
Accurate presentation of data in the abstract is ex-
tremely important. A recent survey of 243 abstracts for
original research articles published in selected pharma-
cological journal issues identified 25% of abstracts con-
taining omissions, a third containing either an omission
or inaccuracy with a total of about 60% of abstracts clas-
sified as deficient in terms of accurate data reporting [11] .
Another group suggested the need for journals to include
in their editing processes specific and detailed attention
to abstracts [12] .
There are several options how to present data. If two
or more groups of subjects were studied, present data
consistently so that you can save space on repeating which
finding was seen in which group. Name groups clearly,
i.e. target or controls, or A, B and C for brevity. If too
many analyses were generated, present only key data
points and leave the rest for writing a paper. For example,
if pretreatment characteristics of patients in a controlled
clinical trial were similar between the groups, there is no
need to show all of them for each group. Overall key me-
dian or mean values would suffice with a statement NS,
i.e. nonsignificant.
A table or figure can be uploaded with electronic ab-
stract submission. Include a table or figure only if data
presentation is markedly improved this way; however, if
understanding the figures/table takes more time than
reading the abstract, you should not consider them. If you
choose to do so, select the most representative data set
that delivers the key message or summarizes most impor-
tant data and leaves space for other details in the text.
Discuss results with your mentor and co-authors since
this internal review will help to determine if generated
data were sufficient to answer the research question in the
abstract. Most importantly, stay focused by including data
relevant to the research question. Packing one abstract
with data is better than splitting data and submitting two
or three weaker abstracts from the same data set.
Avoid statements like ‘two groups were significantly
different’. Instead, show absolute numbers and percent-
ages. Then add p values, coefficients, ratios and confi-
dence intervals after these absolute numbers so that re-
viewers can judge the significance of observations. Men-
tion statistical tests if space permits. Details of statistical
analysis are usually left to the research paper and presen-
tation at a meeting. Abstracts without such data are given
low priority! Make your point with data, not arguments.
While drawing conclusions from your results, remember
that statistically significant difference does not necessar-
ily translate into clinically significant difference.
Conclusions
Your conclusions should be straightforward, brief and
specific to your observations. Quite often they consist of
two sentences. The first concisely summarizes the main
findings, and the last states interpretation or clinical im-
plications. Readers and reviewers commonly check the
title and, if become interested, skip right to the last sen-
tences before they read the full abstract in detail.
Clear formulation of conclusions attests to your ability
to interpret data and understand the evidence-based ap-
proach. If space permits, you may begin with an opening
statement: ‘Our study showed …’ and lucidly summarize
your study findings. Avoid repeating data. There is no
reason to stress how novel or terrific your results are – let
them speak for themselves. On the contrary, there is also
no need to say that ‘further research is needed’. Scientists
never stop explorations, even if a subject is considered
written in stone.
Do not overestimate the importance of your research
findings. Avoid broad claims and strong statements since
even pioneer breakthrough studies require independent
confirmation. Instead, be specific and focused on your
study findings and what they mean. There is no need to
discuss findings by others in this section, or what ques-
tions remain unsettled. Conclusions logically connect the

AB-STR-ACT
Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256–259
259
title, study methods and results all together to deliver the
‘take home’ message.
Your abstract is the first step towards publication,
communication and dissemination of research results
that is imperative for advancement of science [13] . The
scientific community reads more abstracts than full-text
papers since simply there is not enough time to read all
published papers. Instead, scientists screen abstracts and
select which papers are essential to read in full text. Pro-
viding a clear, accurate and lucid abstract would help to
get your research noticed.
Several clinical specialties noticed that 60–75% of ab-
stracts presented at national meetings are not followed by
publication of original papers [14–16] . Although not di-
rectly applicable to major stroke conferences, a survey of
orthopedic investigators who had not had a full-text ar-
ticle published after presenting the abstract at a national
meeting showed that the failure to publish was due to one
of three main reasons:
1 investigators did not have enough time to prepare a
manuscript for publication (the reason most frequent-
ly given);
2 almost one third of the studies that had not been sub-
mitted for publication were ongoing;
3 relationships with co-authors sometimes presented a
barrier to final publication [16] .
The authors concluded that thorough preparation be-
fore the study and the establishment of stricter guidelines
to limit presentations of preliminary data at major meet-
ings may improve publication rates [16] . Also, there is a
publication bias that often only positive findings get pub-
lished, and negative results are less likely to be accepted as
original papers, although they are needed to avoid mis-
takes in interpreting positive studies or planning new tri-
als.
Finally, remember that shortly after submission of
your abstract, your mentor should ask you to draft a re-
search paper regardless whether the abstract is going to
be accepted or not. Although conferences may accept
work-in-progress, interim reports and other communi-
cations that are not suitable for original papers, complet-
ed original research has to be communicated with more
than a conference abstract. Successful researchers follow
abstracts with original paper submission to peer-re-
viewed journals. Failure to do so may result in problems
with your academic career. Advice on how to write a re-
search paper is available [7, 8, 17] . The greatest risk here
is not trying to write at all.
Acknowledgements
We owe to our trainees and colleagues who struggled with sci-
entific writing – their efforts, frustration and unpublished works
provided observations shared in this manuscript. A.V.A. is also
indebted to Dr. John W. Norris who taught him first lessons in
scientific writing.
References
1 http://www.eurostroke.org/esc_abstracts.
htm.
2 http://strokeconference.americanheart.org/
portal/strokeconference/sc/writinggoodab-
stracts.
3 Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, Boon H, Ilersich
AL, Einarson TR: Quality of nonstructured
and structured abstracts of original research
articles in the British Medical Journal, the
Canadian Medical Association Journal and
the Journal of the American Medical Associa-
tion. CMAJ 1994;
150: 1611–1615.
4 Wong HL, Truong D, Mahamed A, Davidian
C, Rana Z, Einarson TR: Quality of struc-
tured abstracts of original research articles
in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian
Medical Association Journal and the Journal
of the American Medical Association: a 10-
year follow-up study. Curr Med Res Opin
2005;
21: 467–473.
5 Sollaci LB, Pereira MG: The introduction,
methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD)
structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr As-
soc 2004;
92: 364–367.
6 Nakayama T, Hirai N, Yamazaki, Naito M:
Adoption of structured abstracts by general
medical journals and format for a structured
abstract. J Med Libr Assoc 2005;
93: 237–
242.
7 Pakes GE: Writing manuscripts describing
clinical trials: a guide for pharmacothera-
peutic researchers. Ann Pharmacother 2001;
35: 770–779.
8 Pamir MN: How to write an experimental
r e s e a r c h p a p e r . A c t a N e u r o c h i r 2 0 0 2 ;
83(sup-
pl):109–113.
9 Hartley J: Applying ergonomics to Applied
Ergonomics: using structured abstracts. Appl
Ergon 1999;
30: 535–541.
10 Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant
AO, Daniels SR, Hachinski VC, Gibbons RJ,
Gardner TJ, Krumholz HM: Effect of blind-
ed peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA
2006;
295: 1675–1680.
11 Ward LG, Kedrach MG, Price SO: Accuracy
of abstract for original research articles in
pharmacy journals. Ann Pharmacother
2004;
38: 1173–1177.
12 Pitkin RM, Branagan MA: Can the accuracy
of abstracts be improved by providing spe-
cific instructions? A randomized controlled
trial. JAMA 1998;
280: 267–269.
13 Pearn J: Publication: an ethical imperative.
BMJ 1995;
310: 1313–1315.
14 Li SF, Umemoto T, Crosley P, Cassidy C:
SAEM abstracts to articles: 1997 and 1999–
2001. Acad Emerg Med 2004;
11: 985–987.
15 Eloubeidi MA, Wade SB, Provenzale D: Fac-
tors associated with acceptance and full pub-
lication of GI endoscopic research originally
published in abstract form. Gastrointest En-
dosc 2001;
53: 275–282.
16 Sprague S, Bhandari M, Deveraux PJ, Swiont-
kowski MF, Tornetta P 3rd, Cook DJ, Dirschl
D, Schemitsch EH, Guyatt GH: Barriers to
full-text publication following presentation
of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings.
J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;
85A:158–163.
17 Alexandrov AV: How to write a research pa-
per. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004;
18: 135–138.