| Tuesday, January 22, 2019
||Meeting Information > Abstract Guidelines
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.
- Animal models
- General, soft tissue
- Education, policy, ethics, or regulation
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
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.
- 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
Abstracts should not include libelous or defamatory content. Material presented in abstracts should not violate any copyright laws.
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
Format of presentation
- 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.
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
30 minutes (25 min + 5 min Q&A)
on display from September 27-28
Manual On Efficiently Writing Competitive Research Abstracts For Surgical Journals
Evaluating the timing and severity of surgical complications after (procedure)
List of authors
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).
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).
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.
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
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.
From (date) to (date) we performed (##, surgery) using technique 1 (##animals, demographic) or 2 (##animals, demographic). Technique 1 description. Technique 2 description.
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.
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