Before submitting
- The conference is legitimate and relevant to the work.
- The submission deadline and word/character limits are confirmed from the official conference site.
- The analysis used in the abstract is stable enough to report.
- All authors have reviewed the submitted version and authorship order.
- Required institutional/publication/communications approval has been checked.
- No patient-identifiable information appears in text, figures or images.
Abstract workflow
Read the submission rules first
Record the required structure, word/character limit, figure/table rules, topic category, author limits, disclosure requirements and whether previously published/presented work is allowed.
Write one message
Decide the single primary finding the audience should remember. The title, objective, results and conclusion should all support that message.
Use a structured abstract where appropriate
Include background/objective, methods, results and conclusion. Report actual numbers and effect estimates where space allows rather than only “significant/non-significant.”
Keep conclusions proportional
Do not imply causation from an observational association, clinical benefit from a surrogate result, or certainty beyond the study design and precision.
Freeze the submitted version
Save the exact abstract, author list and submission confirmation. If the underlying analysis later changes, document what changed before presenting.
Poster workflow
Lead with the question and result
A poster is not a manuscript pasted onto a large page. Make the objective, key result and conclusion visible within seconds.
Prefer figures/tables over dense prose
Use clear labels, readable axes and enough statistical context to interpret the result. Avoid decorative charts that obscure denominators or uncertainty.
Include governance/disclosure details as required
State approvals, registration, funding and conflicts when required by the conference/institution and appropriate to the study.
Proof at final size
Check readability, image quality, author affiliations, references, QR links and any patient images at the actual display scale.
Oral presentation workflow
- Build the talk around the research question, why it matters, what you did, the main result, limitations and what the result means.
- Do not add analyses to slides that the team has not checked simply because a question may arise.
- Prepare a backup slide for key methods, sensitivity analyses or definitions that may be queried.
- Know exactly which claims are supported by the study and which are interpretation.
Final conference-output checklist
- Submission rules were checked against the current official conference instructions.
- All named authors approved the submission.
- Institutional approval for dissemination was checked where applicable.
- Results match the verified analysis.
- Conclusions do not exceed the design.
- Patient-identifiable information is absent or handled under explicit authorised consent/policy.
- The submitted version and confirmation are archived.
- The event can be added to the Research Hub Events/Media sections once verified and approved.
What each abstract section should accomplish
| Section | What the reader needs |
|---|---|
| Background / objective | One brief gap and one explicit objective; avoid a long disease overview. |
| Methods | Design, setting/population, key eligibility criteria, primary outcome/exposure/intervention and essential analysis method. |
| Results | Sample size/denominators, the primary result, effect estimate or descriptive estimate and uncertainty where appropriate. |
| Conclusion | A direct interpretation that does not exceed the design, precision or maturity of the data. |
Poster content hierarchy
- Title: specific enough that the audience knows the question.
- Why this matters: a few lines, not a literature review.
- Objective: explicit primary objective.
- Methods: enough detail to understand the design and denominator.
- Key results: the visual centre of the poster.
- Limitations: the main threats to interpretation.
- Conclusion: one defensible message.
- Governance/disclosures/references: as required and appropriate.
Common conference-output failures
- Submitting before every author has approved the final version.
- Reporting a p-value without the underlying group sizes, estimates or clinical context.
- Changing the primary outcome in the abstract because another result looks more interesting.
- Calling an association “causal” when the design cannot support that inference.
- Uploading patient photographs, scans or detailed timelines without confirming consent and institutional/journal/conference requirements.
- Using a QR code that links to an internal document, identifiable data, or a file whose permissions are not controlled.
- Presenting updated analyses that materially differ from the submitted abstract without telling the team or audience.
After the conference
Archive the final poster/slides and presentation date, record any substantive audience feedback, and decide whether the work proceeds to a full manuscript. A conference abstract is usually too compressed to substitute for full transparent reporting; use the study-design reporting guideline for the manuscript.