Resources

AddToAny

Google+ Facebook Twitter Twitter

HOW TO WRITE A SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT

With the 2017 Congress looming, many will be thinking about submitting an abstract for consideration, or for other scientific meetings or journals.

Abstract

Sally Jane Cutler, Professor in Medical Microbiology from the University of East London, gives her advice and top tips.

The abstract is possibly the most challenging section towrite, as it is usually confined to a few hundred words and yet must capture the essence of the study together with its key findings and relevance.

However, it is often the abstract that is the essential gateway from which a reader will assess whether to read the full work or discard the report and move on. Here I hope to guide readers towards producing this short but hugely important summary of their research findings.

Work in progress

Preparation of an abstract should be considered after the work has been concluded and the report compiled. Many fall into the trap of attempting to submit an abstract of a study that is still in progress and so cannot give more than a brief insight into anticipated findings.

Reviewers of abstracts can easily identify such scenarios and this might result in rejection of the work. A better approach is to wait until data is compiled and interpretations made.

Abstracts can fall into two general formats, structured and unstructured, but must be presented in such a way to provide a standalone summary of the work being presented. The former requires headings, typically background, methods, results and discussion, with the latter having the same flow, but without the headings.

HELPFUL HINTS

✔ Write abstract after completion of work
✔ Follow the instructions given (obvious, but often not done)
✔ Keep it brief and accessible to the non-expert reader
✔ Avoid clutter with too much background or methodological detail
✔ Include your key findings
✔ Why are these important?

The sections

The background section should be concise; informing your reader of what is known and why your study was needed. This should only be a sentence or two and is frequently too long, where authors include too much at the expense of presenting their study findings.

Once justified, the authors need to explain what they actually did, supported by sample sizes, if appropriate. This section does not need to include manufacturer details, as an interested reader can find this in the full article. This is followed by what was found, the results section, supported by statistical significance, if relevant.

Finally, the impact of the work should be given by addressing what the study findings mean in the context of the research field and based upon the study results. The finished abstract should be succinct, yet informative, and written in a manner that will entice the reader to delve further into the paper or to come to your poster.

Evidence-based

If you have the dilemma of writing an abstract for a review or oral presentation, the temptation is to state that “different methods would be reviewed” or that “current understanding will be discussed”, which does not give your reader any real insight. A brief introduction to the subject, the aim or the presentation or review, followed by how information was collated is warranted.

The abstract is strengthened if it states that it will give an evidence-based critical evaluation of these methods, or provide detailed insight into the strengths or weaknesses of the approaches being considered.

Such an abstract might conclude by a closing statement such as “by the end of this (review/lecture), the reader/audience) will understand the diagnostic limitations of…” or “appreciatepathological mechanisms resulting in…” and understand “the justification for using … as a therapeutic option”.

To be avoided
Common pitfalls include overly long introductions; lack of specific findings; or little interpretation of the study relevance (see table). Acronyms should be avoided, as these may confuse the reader. Tables, figures or references are generally
not used within an abstract.

Often, an abstract is read by less specialised readers and, consequently, should be written in a style accessible to such groups (see hints). At the end of this journey, you may only have a paragraph or two, but this concise research summary provides the route by which the work is often evaluated and deemed worthy of further reading.

As such, if the authors can engage their readers at this stage, they have successfully achieved their goal and showcased their research.

Improving your abstract
COMMON PITFALLS EXAMPLES AND SUGGESTIONS

Overly long background: Avoid long introductions. A good abstract should provide suitable background in one or two sentences.

No study aim stated: Clearly state the aim of your study.

Unclear study method: “PCR was used to detect the presence of pathogen X.” This fails to tell the reader which target was used and could significantly impact upon sensitivity and specificity of results produced.

Overuse of acronyms: Your reviewer or reader may not be an expert in the field and will struggle to understand acronyms that are not properly explained (to explain would take as many words as you save by using the acronym in the first instance).

Abstract submitted before results are available: To comply with submission deadlines, authors will often submit an abstract stating “results will be presented” or “findings will be discussed”, which tells the reviewer or reader the work is not yet done and will often be met with a rejection of the abstract.

No indication of actual numbers: “We found 10% of our test samples were positive.” Again, this gives no detail of the size of the population actually tested. What was found in control groups? Was this significant?

No concluding statement: A concise concluding statement provides your reader with a clear “take home” message.

Related Articles

Top