Wednesday, December 12, 2018 Meeting Information > Abstract Guidelines  
About Us
Our Mission
Board of Directors
Our Bylaws
Education Foundation
Foundation Grant
Ken MacLeod Memorial Scholarship
Foundation Grant - Past Recipients
Ken MacLeod Memorial Scholarship - Past Recipients
Membership Application
Membership Categories
Membership Benefits
Committees
Certifications:
Certifications
Certification Requirements
Certification Examinations
Certification Applications
Recommended Reading List
Distribution of Questions
SRA Sample Questions
SRT Sample Questions
SRS Sample Questions
Study Guide
Review Sessions
Recommended References
Logs and Narratives:
SRA Anesthesia Case Log - Example
Surgical Case Log - Example
SRA Narrative - Example
SRT Narrative - Example
SRS Narrative - Example
SRA Anesthesia Case Log
SRT & SRS Surgical Case Log
Continuing Education:
Continuing Education Requirements
CEU Report Form
Verification of CEU Program When Certificate is Not Provided
Surgical Procedure Training Documentation Form
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Certification Exam F.A.Q.
Exam Re-take Procedure
Email Certification Committee
Program and Registration
Hotel and Transportation
Abstract Guidelines
Abstract Submission
Poster Presentation Info
Exhibitor Info
2017 Exhibitors and Sponsors
2017 Wet and Dry Lab Sponsors
Future Annual Meetings
Previous Programs
C. William Hall
Jacob Markowitz
Barry Sauer
Andreas von Recum
Michael DeLeo
ASR Corporate Partners
Corporate Partner Program
Corporate Partner Levels
Join the Mailing List
Positions Wanted
Positions Available
Training Materials
Journal's Home Page
ASR Links
Member Login

Academy of Surgical Research :: Abstract Guidelines

ACADEMY OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
34th ANNUAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26-28, 2018 – CHARLESTON, SC

Call for Abstracts and Session Proposals

The organizers of the 34th Meeting of the Academy of Surgical Research (ASR) welcome the submission of abstracts and session proposals.

Submission Topics

Experimental surgical:
  • Animal models
  • Cardiovascular
  • General, soft tissue
  • Orthopedic
  • Dermatological
  • Ophthalmic
  • Transplantation
  • Education, policy, ethics, or regulation
  • Other

Abstract Submission Process

Important Dates and general information

The abstract will be reviewed and later published in the meeting materials, if accepted.

Abstract Submission Deadline: August 3, 2018 Extended to August 10, 2018

Abstract Submission Form

Abstract Structure

All abstracts should be formatted into the following four sections:
  • Introduction: clarifies the motivation for the research presented.
  • Methods: provides sufficient detail for others to reproduce what is studied in the research project.
  • Results: presents and discusses the results.
  • Conclusion: presents the outcome of the work by interpreting the findings and by relating these findings to the motivation stated in the Introduction. Explain the significance of your findings / outcomes and future implications of the results.
Abstract Guidelines
  • Abstracts will be accepted in English only.
  • There is no fee for submitting an abstract.
  • The abstract text body is limited to 3,000 characters (Approx. 500 words) including spaces. A maximum of two figures/images (in JPG, GIF, or PNG with ideally 600 dpi) can be included. These will not count toward the word limit, nor will the information about authors, institutions and study groups. File size of 2 MB maximum for each figure.
  • Abstracts accepted for presentation will be published electronically in the Journal of Investigative Surgery, the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research unless authors opt-out.
  • Ensure that all co-authors approve of the abstract submission, publication, and potential presentation.

Policies for Abstract Submission

Copyright Policy

Abstracts should not include libelous or defamatory content. Material presented in abstracts should not violate any copyright laws.

Ethics Compliance

Scientific studies and clinical activities should be performed in keeping with the ethical principles delineated in the following policy documents:
  • Institutional Ethical Review for human and/or animal research as appropriate

Abstract Review and Selection Process

Abstract Review
  • All submitted abstracts will go through a peer-review process carried out by a review committee.
  • All abstracts will be reviewed by at least two referees, selected by the scientific program committee.
  • Scores assigned by all reviewers are averaged. The cut-off average score for acceptance is based on available oral and poster presentations. Rejections are further evaluated by the scientific program committee.
  • Poster and oral presentations are viewed as equally important components of the ASR meeting.
Format of presentation

You may opt to submit your abstract to be considered for an oral presentation, a poster presentation, or either (at the committee’s discretion).

Notification of Acceptance or Rejection to Corresponding Author

Notification of acceptance or rejection will be sent to the submitting (corresponding) author by August 10,2018. Please note that only the corresponding author will receive mail concerning the abstract and is responsible for informing all co-authors of the status of the abstract. Authors whose abstracts have been accepted will receive instructions for the presentation of their abstract.

Proposed Abstract Formats

Oral Presentation 30 minutes (25 min + 5 min Q&A)
Poster on display from September 27-28

Resource:

Manual On Efficiently Writing Competitive Research Abstracts For Surgical Journals
https://fhs.mcmaster.ca/neurosurgery/documents/manualefficientlywritingabstracts1.pdf

Examples:

Evaluating the timing and severity of surgical complications after (procedure)
List of authors

Introduction
Complications following (procedure) are well-described, however the timing and severity is unclear. Our objective was to characterize and evaluate the median time-to-event for postoperative complications associated with (procedure).

Methods
We performed a retrospective review of (animals) undergoing (procedure) from (YYYY-YYYY). The anesthetic and analgesic protocol included (brief description drug, dose, route). A (procedure) was performed (brief description). We investigated complications occurring after (procedure) and characterized severity using the Accordian Severity Grading System as well as days from operation to complication to define early (0-15 days) and late complications (16-30 days).

Results
A total of (## animals, age weight) underwent (procedure), all animals recovered following surgery. (##%) of (animals) experienced a complication within 30 days, with (##%) of (animals) experiencing 2 or more complications. Of animals who had at least 1 complication, most (##%) had their first within 15 days and these were categorized as mild. Complications related to the surgical site (e.g. infection, dehiscence) were most likely to occur between (##-## days) post-procedure. (##) Severe complications included (base on procedure e.g sepsis, reop,) were likely to occur between (##-##) days post-procedure.

Conclusions
The majority of complications after (procedure) and mild and occur within the first 15 days. Site-related complications occurred early while severe complications occurred several (days, weeks earlier, later, or similarly). Knowledge regarding timing of postoperative complications may better inform refinement measures for perioperative practices and postoperative follow-up.

Surgical technique 1 Compared to Surgical technique 2
List of authors

Introduction
Description of the surgical problem and goal for translation to the clinical patient. In this analysis we compare the outcomes of animals who underwent surgical procedure for problem using either technique 1 or 2.

Methods
From (date) to (date) we performed (##, surgery) using technique 1 (##animals, demographic) or 2 (##animals, demographic). Technique 1 description. Technique 2 description.

Results
Surgical procedure was successful in (##%) using technique 1 and (##%) using technique 2. In both groups, (observations in common). (Surgical outcome measures…) were (equivalent, superior, inferior and why). Duration of procedure was (min) using technique 1 versus (min) technique 2.

Conclusions
In this study we demonstrated improved survival and shorter surgical duration after technique 1 compared with technique 2. Provide a recommendation as it relates to model and any perceived limitations.


2018 ASR Program Committee (click to email):
Email Entire Program Committee Group

 
 
15490 101st Ave. N., Suite 100 | Maple Grove, MN 55369 | Tel: 763.235.6464
All Contents ©2017 Academy of Surgical Research | Design by CustomFit Computer