Congress abstracts: preparing abstracts
for submission and successful acceptance
M.E.J. Curzon*, PE. Cleaton-Jones**
Emeritus Professors of: *Leeds Dental Institute, Leeds, England; **University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa,
Key words: Congress abstracts, scientific papers,
submission
Postal address: Prof. M.E.J. Curzon. Foxgloves, Galphay, Nr Ripon,
North Riding, England, HG4 3NJ.
Email: curzongalphay@aol.com
Abstract
AIM: To provide guidance on writing congress abstracts
for submission and how to increase the chance of
acceptance. REVIEW: There is increasing competition
for submitted abstracts to be accepted by scientific con-
gresses. Because the facilities or size of a congress may
be limited a selection process is often used based upon
the quality of abstracts submitted. Accordingly, it is crucial
for a researcher to prepare an abstract very carefully to
ensure the best chance of acceptance. The approaches
to preparing an abstract and the techniques for enhancing
quality are reviewed. Suggestions and guidance are given
to ensure the production of a well structured, informative
and scientifically sound abstract.
Introduction
Every year there are many dental scientific meetings, congresses
and conferences. In most cases, whether the main emphasis of
a congress is basic or clinical science, there are sessions for the
presentation of submitted abstracts. Such presentations may
be oral, posters with discussion or simply display posters for
general review. In the past there was little pressure on timeta-
bles and poster space and it was not too difficult to have an
abstract accepted.
However, there are now considerable pressures on conference/
congress organisers to fit in as many abstract presentations
as possible. There is also the need to maintain high scientific
standards. At the same time, depending on the venue, there
may well be restrictions on the space/rooms/auditoria for the
giving of oral presentations and also on how many posters can
be displayed. These factors have increasingly led to systems of
assessing submitted abstracts so that standards of quality are
maintained. The result has been an inevitable move to various
systems of grading abstracts. On that basis abstracts are often
now categorised into those for oral presentation, poster display
or rejection.
Oral versus poster. Some organisations allow researchers to
request what form they wish to present their research. Others
consider this but make a final decision themselves. The judge-
ment on which abstracts to accept for different presentations
may be governed by current interest in the speciality, catego-
ries or priority of a congress (usually advertised or designated
beforehand) and what research is likely to be of the greatest
282 European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 12 (Issue 6). 2011
interest to delegates. Therefore, consideration should be given
when aiming to submit an abstract as which subjects will be of
the most interest and to how it is to be written and presented
in order to gain a high grade or priority. The research presented
at an organisation’s previous congress should be consulted
(through published abstracts) to gain an idea of how best to
present work.
In order to have the optimum chance of acceptance and gaining
a high score, there are approaches and techniques that should
be used. Most of these techniques are simply common sense
but also each abstract has to be considered as a mini-paper
with sufficient information for an assessor/reader to know why
the research was done, how it was done, what were the findings
and a conclusion of the value of the research. This can be a
large requirement when it is considered that the space available
in which to type an abstract is often very limited.
First step. As with many other aspects of scientific writing and
publication, because most abstracts are ultimately published,
the first step is to consult the instructions. Strange as it may
seem, when assessing abstracts as the authors of this paper
have been doing for many years, it is often very clear that the
writer has just not read the instructions! These days all con-
gress/conference organisers publish, either in journals or online
(or often both), detailed instructions as to abstract requirements.
These should be read very carefully.
Once the instructions have been read they should be read again
and ideally a third time. It is recommended that a list of bullet
points of the most important aspects of the instructions should
be made, such as:
O maximum number of words allowed,
O size of font,
O headings (aim, methods, results, conclusions),
O abstract maximum box size.
This may appear to be obvious or silly but by reading instruc-
tions again and again the researcher will have less chance of
getting it wrong. As an assessor a first ‘gleaning’ of abstracts
is often to exclude all those that have not met the published
criteria. Assessors are just the same as everybody else; they are
busy people and will not spend time on improperly presented
abstracts.
Second step. Because scientific abstracts these days are usu-
ally published it means that previous abstracts can be consulted.
In doing so the prospective abstract author should pay attention
as to which abstracts have been given as oral presentations,
which as posters with discussion and which as display posters.
By studying the most successful abstracts in detail the prospec-
tive author should gain an insight as to which subjects probably
gained the highest scientific scores and which ones did not.
Careful study will indicate why a high score was obtained.

Third step. At this juncture the writer of the abstract should
list the main requirements. These are likely to be:
O Maximum number of characters allowed for the abstract
title, does it include spaces or not?
O How
many authors are allowed and, if restricted to a maxi-
mum number, what is that?
O How many lines/characters are allowed for the institutional
affiliations of the author(s)?
O What is the size of the box for an abstract?
O Forthe main text what is the maximum number of words or
lines allowed?
O How is the abstract to be laid out and are there specific
headings required?
Once these very basic requirements have been listed then the
preparation of the abstract can begin.
An important consideration is that the most important part of
an abstract is the science. Because all abstracts are limited
by size and space as little as possible should be devoted to
authors and institutions. It is your scientific message that you
need to get across to assessors and then congress delegates.
Abstract content
Title. Clearly this is very important and must tell a reader the
main subject. Because there is almost always a restriction on
number of characters it has to be very carefully worded. It
must be precise, informative. A poor example might be:
Caries incidence in groups of children living in a district of
outer Ruristan.
This has 77 characters with spaces and if the maximum
allowed was perhaps 65 it is too long. At the same time it
does not tell us anything interesting. What was thought to be
related to the decline in caries and what age group was used?
A better version might be:
Fluoride induced 85% caries decline in 6 yr-old
Ruristan children.
That title is 65 characters long and comes within the limit
allowed. It also tells why there was a decline, by how much
and in which age group.
Space can be gained by changing words to simpler ones.
Abbreviations or symbols may be used in a title to save space
and an obvious one is & instead of ‘and’.
Authors. Some organisations specifically limit the number of
authors that can be listed. The European Academy of Paedi-
atric Dentistry (EAPD) requires no more than five. But even this
number might be considered too many. The present authors
have on occasion seen as many as 17 and the immediate criti-
cism is how could so many people be involved in a research
project. In addition the more authors cited the less space
there will be for the scientific content of the abstract.
Preparing congress abstracts
Related to listing the author(s) is the number of institutions
acknowledged. If there are, for example, three authors but
from different institutions that means the space needed for
listing them all becomes greater. Less space is again avail-
able for the scientific text.
In some abstract requirements the space available for the
title, authors and institutions is restricted. A common require-
ment is for a maximum of five lines, as for the EAPD. That
should not be a problem if the title is brief and to the point,
there are three or less authors and from one institution. It
may well be that in preparing an abstract based on an exten-
sive piece of work, with multiple investigators a decision has
to be made as to who were the most important research-
ers. There is always an opportunity when finally giving the
presentation either orally or as a poster to give credit to all
colleagues.
Main text. This is the most important part of the abstract
and is read in detail by assessors. It must be in good easily
read English (certainly for most international meetings) and
the English should be simple so as to be easily translated
into other languages.
Headings are required these days and usually they are:
O AIM/OBJECTIVE: what was the objective in doing the
study? Usually one short simple sentence is all that is
required,
O METHODS/DESIGN: a brief description of the main meth-
ods giving an indication of how the work was carried out.
References should be avoided as they use valuable space,
O RESULTS/FINDINGS: this is the most important part of
abstract and should give hard data of the most important
results with statistical significance if appropriate,
O CONCLUSION: this should be a simple sentence making
a brief statement, speculation, political or philosophical
statements should be avoided.
In preparing the text always check back to the instructions.
The headings given above may vary from organisation to
organisation. Conformity to instructions is most important.
The last point, having completed the first draft of the text, a
check should be made as to the number of lines and words,
modern computers easily do this for you. Does the abstract
fit into the prescribed box? In most cases it will not as first
prepared. In that case editing has to occur to reduce the
size of the abstract. Practice over the years helps here and
a researcher new to abstract presentation will learn by trial
and error the tricks in changing words. Simple ways are, for
example not repeating words, such as is shown in the fol-
lowing examples.
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 12 (Issue 6). 2011 283
 M.E.J. Curzon and P.E. Cleaton-Jones
RESULTS: The results showed that considering the test
group (group B) the caries was found to be significantly
lower than in the control group (A).
147 characters/spaces
RESULTS: Caries, dmfs, was significantly lower in test Grp B
(2.32±1.2) than Control Grp A (6.35±3.6).
104 characters/spaces.
The second, much better, example gives data and standard
errors yet uses fewer characters and spaces. By re-writing,
sometimes many times, the text of an abstract can be pared
down, refined and simplified making it more readable and
informative in the process.
The main text has to be written succinctly but at the same
time to give a maximum amount of information within a small
box. Space can be saved by the use of easily interpreted
abbreviations, thus Grp instead of Group, F instead of
fluoride, mths instead of months, and dys instead of days.
Abbreviations or acronyms can be used once the full term
has been used, some common examples are:
O dental general anaesthesia (DGA),
O fissure sealants (FS),
O glass ionomer cement (GIC),
O molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH),
O sodium fluoride (NaF)
O early childhood caries (ECC),
O socio-economic status (SES),
O dental behaviour management problems (DBMP),
O oral hygiene (OH),
O cleft lip/palate (CLP),
O mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA),
O calcium hydroxide (CaOH).
Many acronyms may be used as long as the original name is
written in full the first time it appears.
Examples. In figure 1 is illustrated a typical badly prepared
and presented abstract that would certainly be rejected.
Specifically problems arise in the first assessment of the
title, authors and their institutions and as the text does not
conform to the requirements. The title does not tell us very
much and is far too long. A better presentation for this study
would have been ‘Caries related to dietary apple juice and
seed cake use’, which is only 56 characters. While there are
less than 5 authors with title and institutions the line allow-
ance is exceeded. If the title were to be reduced and as all
authors were to be listed as simply from the same institution
the maximum of 5 lines would be met.
There are major problems with the scientific text. Firstly it
does not fit into the prescribed box and the maximum word
count is exceeded. Secondly there is little useful information.
In detail an assessor would have to ask:
284 European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 12 (Issue 6). 2011
Figure 1. An example of a poorly presented and unacceptable
scientific abstract.
...Caries and oral hygiene assessment of children
aged 4 to 8 years old in rural Ruristan who are using
apple juice and seed cakes everyday.
SA Bonnet*1, KL Smith2, JM Thespian3, VS Freesome1,
IM Ransomed2, F Hyd3, Depts. 1Paediatric Dentistry,
2
Nutrition, 3Biostatistcs, Ripon Dental School, North
Yorkshire, Britannia.
BACKGROUND: Because dental caries is still a
serious problem especially in small children the
role of the different foods used may be impor-
tant and preventive dental programs need to by
based on top practice. AIM: The aim of the study
was to find out if children using apple juice and
seed cakes which are a national food in Ruristan
more than five times a day had more caries than
those that did not and what type of jouice or cake
was worse. METHODS: A sample of children
aged 4 to 8 yrs old were examined in schools by
our dental staff. Use of apple juice and seed cake
was found out by asking each child what they
had eaten the previous week. Children were seen
for their check-ups in school by several exam-
iners from our dental school. RESULTS: Dental
caries was much higher in the children who used
both apple juice and seed cakes several times
a day and related to how many times they used
the foods. Egremont russet apple juice caused
less caries than golden delicious apple juice even
when used several times a day. Seed cake effects
on caries were different based how the mothers
made the cakes and which seeds, sesseme seed
or poppy seed they used and this was significant.
The meaning of these results will be discussed
and which of the apple juices and seed cakes is
to be recommended for children. CONCLUSION:
Our study has found that different apple juices
combined with seed cakes can affect the amount
of dental caries that children get. Governments
should intervene to stop the use of some types
of apple juice. Mothers of young children should
be told which seeds to use for cake making and
how they must be used.
Title: 116 (should be <90 characters and spaces);
Authors and institutions: 6 (should be 5 lines or less)
allowed;
Text: 265 (maximum 250 words) and all within box
82x150 (maximum space should be 70x140) mm.

O Why is there such a wordy background that is not needed?
O In the methods how was the sample obtained (convenience,
random, stratified); what caries diagnosis criteria were used,
how many examiners were used and were they calibrated,
how was reproducibility of caries diagnosis and dietary
assessment measured?
O The results give no data at all as there should be dmfs indi-
cies with standard errors or deviations for the different groups
related to dietary frequency. No statistical test is mentioned
and the authors make the cardinal error of saying ‘results will
be discussed’.
O No indication is given as to the research funding or support.
O The conclusion makes sweeping statements and dictatorial
recommendations that are not supported, as there are no data
reported in the abstract.
In figure 2 is illustrated an acceptable abstract. It meets all the
requirements in terms of lines and word counts. The aim is clearly
stated and the methods detailed. Hard data is given together
with statistical analysis and the conclusion is simple and clear.
Finally the financial support is acknowledged which also indi-
cates that it was commercial from one of the drug companies
concerned. That shows an honest report of possible influence.
Case reports
Much that has been written above also applies to the pres-
entation of abstracts concerning clinical case reports. Some
organisations do make a distinction between scientific research
abstracts and case reports. In most cases such a distinction is
usually that the headings used within the text differ. Thus, in case
reports a common set of headings may be: BACKGROUND,
CASE REPORT, TREATMENT, FOLLOW-UP. There may or may
not be a conclusion. When indicated, there should be details of
the status of the child/patient on follow-up (ideally for at least
two years), particularly when treatment has been provided. The
success of a treatment approach is of considerable importance
in evaluating the clinical care.
The layout of the abstract for a case report follows the same
pattern as illustrated before for a scientific paper. In all cases
the number of characters (with or without spaces), the number
of authors, lines allowed for authors and institutions will be the
same as shown in Fig 3. There may be problems with authors’
institutions as with case reports a number of different dental as
well as medical specialities may be involved. However, as before
more lines used for institutional affiliations will mean less space
for the details of the report.
Nevertheless, despite different approaches to layout the text
needs to be clearly expressed, precise and detailed. Phrases
such as ‘the cases will be discussed’ or ‘…conclusions as to
treatment approaches will be presented’ are to be avoided. It
must be remembered that an abstract may be read at anytime
in the future. Therefore, results and data are essential as also is
a valid conclusion.
Preparing congress abstracts
Figure 2. An example of a well presented scientific abstract
that meets all of the required criteria.
...Effect of cystic fibrosis medications on dental car-
ies in affected children.
JM Van Doonigan*, HC Maertens. Dept. Paed-iatric
Dentistry, School Dentitry, University Northwest Cape,
Windhook, Atlantis.
AIM: This was to study the effects on dental
caries of medications used in the medical care
of children with cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS:
A random sample of children aged 8-12 yrs old
diagnosed with CF from birth, was selected in
Windhoek (Atlantis). All children were attending
the Windhoek Children’s Hospital and medicated
daily with oral Fintracin© (GrpA) or Mercap©
(GrpB) syrups. Oral exams for caries was by
one examiner (JvD), after calibration, using the
WHO criteria. Reproducibility was assessed
by repeat examinations of approx. 10% of the
sample. Questionnaires to parents assessed
diet (episodes of sugar intake) and oral hygiene
(OH) habits – fluoride/toothpaste usage and
frequency. RESULTS: Reproducibility Kappa
score was 0.87. 265 children were recruited
with 138 in GrpA and 127 in Grp B. Caries, as
dmfs & DMFS were (mean±SE): GrpA 3.28±1.62;
1.12±0.38 and GrpB 2.02±1.01; 0.76±0.15, and
differences were significant at p=<0.001(Chi
sq) test comparing means. No differences were
noted between groups for dietary sugars either
as frequency or quantity (p=>0.05). Average daily
F-toothpaste brushings did not differ between
groups. Other OH habits (mouthrinses, F-gels
etc) were not different between groups (p=>0.05).
CONCLUSION: CF children using Fintracin© had
significantly higher rates of caries than those
using Mercap©. Supported by a grant from Mer-
cap Corporation.
Title: 76/90 characters and spaces;
Authors and institutions: 5/5 lines allowed;
Text: 208/250 word and all within box 70-140mm.
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 12 (Issue 6). 2011 285
 M.E.J. Curzon and P.E. Cleaton-Jones
Figure 3. An example of a well presented scientific abstract that
meets all of the required criteria.
...Case report: Tooth agenesis in a boy with Connetta-
Kneebone syndrome.
ME. Phillips*, FC Ackroyde**, Depts. *Paediatric Dentistry
& ** Paediatrics, University Medical Hospital of Devon,
Totnes, Devon, United Kingdom.
BACKGROUND: Connetta-Kneebone syndrome
(CKS) is a recently described syndrome affect-
ing bone structures and particularly to joints.
Affected individuals show bone deformities of the
limbs with the knee joint being mostly affected.
Dental aspects of CKS have not previously been
reported. CASE REPORT: A boy aged 8 yrs old
was referred to the Totnes Dept. Paediatric Den-
tistry with a history of late development of his
teeth. The medical history revealed CKS syn-
drome with no other family members affected.
Clinical intra-oral examination indicated teeth 55,
53, 11, 21 63, 65, 26, 36, 75, 73, 31, 41, 83, 85,
46 present. Dental caries was absent and OH was
good. But several permanent teeth were missing.
Radiographs showed multiple agenesis affect-
ing selected permanent molars, premolars and
canines. TREATMENT: Assessments indicated
the need for a combined paediatric dentistry and
prosthodontic care. A preventive program was ini-
tiated to ensure good health of the existing teeth.
Posterior partial dentures were constructed as an
interim measure to maintain alignment of the exist-
ing teeth. FOLLOW-UP: Over a follow-up period
of 3 years good health has been maintained. The
long- term plan will be to place implants to sup-
port prosthetic appliances once jaw growth has
ceased. CONCLUSION: Tooth agenesis may be
associated with CKS requiring multi-disciplinary
long-term care.
Title: 69/90 characters and spaces;
Authors and institutions: 3/5 lines allowed;
Text: 209/250 word and all within box 70-140mm.
Common mistakes
Missing the deadline. There is no excuse for not having
an abstract submitted well before the requested deadline.
This is particularly so in these days of electronic mailings.
Deadlines are always well publicised and therefore consci-
entious researchers will start to prepare an abstract well
before a deadline. Our recommendation is to start at least
three months before the submission date. A good abstract
will take many drafts and between each one it is highly rec-
ommended to put the draft to one side for several days and
then return for further consideration.
286 European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 12 (Issue 6). 2011
Peer review. Not having other colleagues look at an abstract
runs the risk of important aspects being missed. Within a
research group it is advisable for draft abstracts to be critically
reviewed by others, ideally those not within the same research
group who can have an objective opinion, particular if their
interests are somewhat different to the author(s). They may well
point to areas of misunderstanding or interpretations of the text.
A danger that can occur is when writing an abstract is left to
the last minute. This may be because of inertia. But may be
because of not having completed the research and hoping that
all will be ready by the submission date. This is very dangerous.
In these authors experience such hopes are misguided and it is
far better to keep that project for a latter congress.
‘Salami slicing’. This is where a research group, or team, has
completed a study with a number of variables examined. It is
one study. When it comes to preparing abstracts the topic is
sliced up into small pieces so that a number of presentations
may be made. Thus the abstracts and authors can be ‘Smith,
Brown and Block’, ‘Brown, Block and Smith’, ‘Block, Smith and
Brown’. Epidemiologic studies are sometimes sliced this way
so that one presenter does the dental caries data, a second
does the oral hygiene results and a third the malocclusions.
In reality this is a single study on the oral status of a group
of subjects. Experienced assessors will often pick this up and
downgrade abstracts accordingly or even recommend rejec-
tion. An excuse for this is that scientists cannot have financial
support to attend a conference unless they give a presenta-
tion. But a well-founded department should have more than
enough different, separate, projects on hand for all to attend
and present.
Title and authors. The most obvious common mistake is
the instructions have not been read. Long titles and multiple
authors are often seen that mean either the title text does not
fit into the space allowed or impinges on the main text leaving
little space of the scientific report.
When multiple authors are listed it may not be the first name
that is to present. It can even be the last named. Suspicion
arises here as to who did the work. Was it the first named on
the abstract? Or was it another member of a department, who
did very little, riding on the project in order to attend the con-
gress? Perhaps this approach uses the department Chairman,
who did little but insists on being listed first? This can be part
of salami-slicing as noted above. In well-presented research
abstracts the first named should be the presenter and the per-
son who did most of the work.
Aim. Long-winded aims, sometimes with several lines of back-
ground discussion uses up space unnecessarily. The rule here is
to keep it very simple. A common mistake is to write ‘AIM: The
aim of the study was to…’. The word aim occurs twice here and is
redundant. It should be ‘AIM: This was to..’ Of course it is a study
– what else would it be? The word ‘study’ is also superfluous.

Methods. Phrases to be avoided are for example: ‘the meth-
ods will be described’; ‘the methods of Angstruther were
used’; ‘children were examined for caries’ such phases should
be avoided. In the first example the phrase tells us absolutely
nothing of how the work was done. In the second example
we may not be familiar with Angstruther’s work and an asses-
sor and reader will not have to time to find out. In the third
example this might appear to be acceptable but does not say
which caries diagnosis method was used, which children etc,
details are lacking.
Results. As with methods details are required and therefore it
is not acceptable to say ‘the results will be given’ or, as noted
above ‘the results showed that considering the test group
(group B) the caries was found to be significantly lower than in
the control group (A)’. Another mistake in this section is not to
give statistical results, if they were obviously carried out.
A further example of a wrong phrase is:
‘an extensive survey of dental caries rates in various coun-
tries has been made and conclusions drawn about their
influencing factors’.
The best way of writing this would be:
‘In 200 articles dental caries rates from surveys (WHO
criteria) in 20 European countries showed that doubling
fluoride toothpaste use halved caries prevalence’.
Conclusion. Common mistakes here are to repeat the results,
or to use phrases such as ‘in conclusion’ when the word con-
clusion has already been given. Other superfluous phrases
might be ‘on the basis of the findings in this study…’, or ‘the
findings led to the conclusion…’ which are repetitive and
Preparing congress abstracts
saying the obvious. Such phrasing uses spaces that would
be more beneficially used in the methods or results sections.
Categorical statements or words such as ‘unequivocal’, or
‘without question’ should be avoided as it implies there are
no doubts at all when nothing is absolute in science. Authors
may sometimes use this section to express a political or philo-
sophical opinion. That is not appropriate. The findings/data
should speak for themselves and it is up to the reader to make
their own conclusions.
Acknowledgement. Finally, if a study has been given finan-
cial support then an acknowledgement should be included
at the end of the conclusion. This is sometimes missed and
only appears at the actual oral or poster presentation. The
acknowledgement needs to be brief so that ‘This research
was supported by a financial grant from the Childhood Trust
of Ruristan’ should be better written as ‘Supported by the
Ruristan Childhood Trust’. It is usual to write this acknowl-
edgement in Italics to differentiate it from the main text. While
such an acknowledgement is important characters and space
used here means there is less for the main text and therefore
should be as brief as possible.
Conclusion
The writing and presentation of abstracts for scientific
conference/congress needs careful consideration. Detailed
attention must be made to instructions and requirements
and followed exactly. Every abstract is a mini-paper and
must contain all the necessary information for any reader to
know exactly why research was undertaken, how and what
important results were found.
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 12 (Issue 6). 2011 287