By definition, an abstract is short. Most national meeting program committees require abstracts to be less than one page, single-spaced. Others have a specific form, which limits length. Always check with the program committee representative if you have any question about format. However, the committee frequently provides examples of abstracts in the materials they send out to potential program contributors.
The abstract is the advertisement for your study. A poorly prepared abstract may cause a carefully done study to be overlooked. Abstracts should both entice program committees to accept your submission and convince meeting registrants to attend your presentation. Thus, abstracts should alluringly and succinctly condense the findings of your study.
Titles should be short and catchy. The abstract should stand by itself; it should not include such statements as “data are discussed,” “studies were made of” or “data are given on.” The abstract should summarize specific facts:
1. A statement of the problem;
2. A description of methods (epidemiological investigation, laboratory studies, etc.);
3. The results (using real data);
4. The significance of the study (discussion); and
5. The conclusions.
Some General Standards
The best
manuscripts are short and thorough. Most journals will provide you with length
guidelines in the “instruction for authors” section. Journals will also provide you with very
detailed instructions on format, number of copies to be submitted, etc. For manuscripts completed for requirements at
Words should be simple and readily understandable to the reader of the journal. Avoid jargon. Words should be used according to their dictionary definition. Key technical words and acronyms should be defined early in the paper, usually in the “Methods” section. Paragraphs should have topic sentences, which introduce the subject of the paragraph. Unless prescribed by the proposed journal, the active voice should be used—it is more informative and more precise than the passive voice.
Accuracy
When a manuscript is submitted, it should be free of grammatical and numerical errors. Every number in a paper should be checked against its original source by someone other than the principal author. One mechanism for checking the numbers is for a manuscript to be read out loud while another person reads silently to look for typographical and spelling errors. Make liberal use of editors (or friends) who have a critical and sharp eye for inconsistencies or errors. It is difficult to spot your own errors after several drafts of the manuscript are written—a “fresh pair of eyes” is usually very helpful to eliminate errors in the final draft.
Organizational Structure
Manuscripts
submitted to meet
Title page
Abstract page
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
References
Tables
Figures
Title
The Title page should specify the title, the authors and their organizational affiliation. This information goes on a separate page, with the information centered on the page. The title should be the fewest words that adequately describe the content of the paper. As a general guide to length, we suggest that article titles should not exceed ten to twelve words. Finally, titles should be “catchy’—unless the reader’s curiosity is stimulated, the article will not be read.
Examples of clever titles:
1.
“Look Who’s Smoking Now: The Blacks and Whites of
Cigarette Use in the
2. “Once is Not Enough: Repeated Testing for Cervical HPV Infection”
3. “Of Babies and Bathwater”
Authorship
A general guideline on authorship is that the primary author is the person who contributes the most to writing the manuscript. If possible, this same person should coordinate all the different review stages until the manuscript is published. Usually the primary author has responsibility for determining who the other authors should be and the sequence of authorship. Co-authors include collaborators who play a major role in research design, data collection, and data analysis. When using data collected with the assistance of other institutions such as State health departments, you should give consideration to offering co-authorship to the key persons involved. Reviewers should ensure that a fair consideration is given to all who contribute to the paper. Note: Too many authors smack of “loading” a manuscript; as a guide, no more than four or five authors usually make major contributions.
Abstract
The Abstract should describe the principal objective of the investigation, the methods, the main results, and the principal conclusions. It should not exceed 150-250 words, depending on the journal’s standards. See the specific standards for Abstracts that are presented at meetings—the same basic guidelines hold for abstracts that are part of a manuscript. Abstracts warrant a separate page from the body of the paper.
Introduction
The Introduction should have a problem statement, which indicates the importance of the study and the reason for doing it. Present pertinent known facts and the theoretical development which leads logically to your hypothesis. It should include a specific statement of what your analysis is about. In addition, it is often useful to tell the reader the key finding(s) of the paper, especially if the analysis is complex. This strategy is a matter of personal style, however, and may not fit with your own.
Methods
The Methods section describes what was done in the study. It should list the data sources and define the study population in terms of person, time and place. A table of important characteristics of the study group (and comparison group) can reduce the length of text.
One must explicitly state selection criteria for subjects; diagnostic criteria for cases; how exposure was measured and categorized; and, the methods of data collection, be it chart review, interview, or laboratory procedures. For laboratory-based studies, clear descriptions of procedures should be included. In addition, key variables should be defined. If interpretation depends on how questions were asked, then these questions can be included. Statistical methods of analysis and special analytic tools (such as computer software packages) should be stated and referenced. No results should be in the Methods section.
The Results section describes the data. It should contain all of the new findings of the study to be presented in the paper. It should contain only the results bearing on the problem stated in the Introduction. It should not include methods, references to other studies, or inferences.
Where possible, for epidemiological studies, use relative risk and 95 percent confidence intervals to describe differences. If no difference is found, power calculations are in order. Usually the first paragraph and first table of results describe the most important findings in the most general form, and subsequent paragraphs should deal with more specific issues. However, many papers include the demographic characteristics of study subjects as the first table. The Results should emphasize only the high points of the accompanying tables and graphs. Numbers should correspond between text and tables/graphs. However, the text should not simply list numbers easily found in Tables; rather it should highlight the trends or key data. Methods or discussion belong elsewhere.
Discussion
The Discussion section interprets the data. If the results are complex, the Discussion should begin with a summary of the most important findings to be considered in the Discussion section. This paragraph should be followed by a discussion of (1) the internal validity of the findings (see below), (2) the relationship of the results of other studies, and (3) the implications, conclusions, and recommendations of the study. If applicable, the public health and economic implications of the findings are important. Inferences from the data at hand should be distinguished from inferences either based on other studies or drawn from personal beliefs.
Some elaboration is in order. Discussion of the internal validity of results should include consideration of the extent to which the results are “true” findings rather than being due to bias. Usually, for epidemiological studies, one needs to consider selection bias, ascertainment bias in the data collection, confounding, and random error (chance).
Assuming that you are able to rule bias out, and then you should discuss interpretation of your findings. Here the agreement or disagreement of your findings with other studies is important. If you disagree, you should be able to explain why. The Discussion should conclude with a statement about the importance or implications of your findings. The reader should not finish and ask, “so what?”
Reviewers of your manuscripts will always be looking for faults in the design or execution of your studies. By including a limitations paragraph in your Discussion section, you can “beat them to the punch.” This paragraph is your chance to note the potential shortcomings of your own research and helps you honestly frame the study in comparison to some “ideal” study that you were not able to conduct due to funding constraints, power constraints, etc. If you include some statement about future studies that you deem warranted or plan to carry out, your readers will think you are independently brilliant and have far-reaching vision.
Acknowledgements
For the Acknowledgements section, the following support personnel might be considered: those who provided important roles in supervision, statistics, data processing, typing, editorial review, financing of the study, and other institutional support.
References
Unless otherwise required by the proposed journal or publication, the standard AMA reference format should always be used. Most journals specify the format they want.
Tables
Tables should be simple as possible. Dates should be organized so that like elements read down, not across; this strategy facilitates easy comparison. For both graphs and tables, headings should be sufficiently clear so that the meaning of the data is understandable without reference to the text. Explanatory footnotes facilitate ready understanding of graphs and tables independently from the text.
Graphs and Other Illustrations
Maps, graphs and other pictorial aids can communicate information quickly and effectively. One should use an illustration if the data show pronounced trends, making an interesting picture and a visual “snapshot” of the data that will be more likely to be remembered by your readers. If numbers “just sit there” with no exciting trend apparent in the graph, a table is satisfactory, and certainly in terms of resources, often a lot cheaper to prepare. One should choose the appropriate type of graph. One may wish to seek consultation from a senior scientist and/or from the editorial services of a competent editor to help make these decisions.