Menu
Prospective authors are encouraged to review the following submission guidelines to maximize their chances of acceptance and participation. We also suggest that they consider the themes of this year’s conference. Abstracts are not required to pertain to these themes, but we suggest that authors are mindful of how their work relates to these themes.
Abstracts may be submitted under any one of six broad categories on the submission portal– these are not strict categories and have no bearing on the chances of an abstract being accepted serve only to help sort submissions.
The aforementioned categories include:
1. Abstracts must be titled and divided into the following four sections:
2. Abstracts must be no longer than 250 words, submitted in English language (Font: Arial; Font Size: 12)
3. Abstracts must describe research that is related to the specific discipline:
4. Abbreviations may be used but must be explicitly identified and explained the first time they are used in the text. Abbreviations should not be used in the title.
5. Studies that are complete or in progress with preliminary results and conclusions may be submitted. Proposals or studies in process without results may not be submitted.
6. Previously published work may be submitted.
7. Abstracts submitted via email or other means will not be considered. All submissions must be made through the official portal linked on our website or in the registration section that follows.
8. Incomplete submissions will be returned to authors without peer review.
9. Data derived from human subjects must be adequately anonymized. Case reports should not contain information in any medium that may betray the identity of the subject.
10. All methods sections should include a short phrase or statement from the authors confirming ERC/IRB approval (or provide the corresponding approval #), a waiver, or provide an acceptable rationale for why it was not sought. Case reports must explicitly state that patient consent was obtained.
11. Abstracts will be reviewed for plagiarism, which will be grounds for immediate rejection and, potentially, additional consequences for the authors’ participation in the summit and future FMHCPS events.
12. Case reports are eligible for submission but have distinct content recommendations (see below).
13. Narrative reviews, due to a lack of robust methodology, are not eligible for submission.
14. Abstracts should be written in prose. Bullet points are not acceptable.
Abstracts will be evaluated primarily for the rigor, appropriateness, and transparency of the methods and overall clarity of communication. The language of the text should be formal, scientific, and specific. All parts of the abstract should relate to one another in a logical sequence and, together, provide a clear summary of the study described.
Scientific novelty and impact are appreciated but are not expected to a great degree given that the conference is for student researchers. In studies where statistical methods are used, the chances of acceptance will not be affected by acceptance or rejection of null hypotheses/statistical significance of the results.
A challenge for authors will be to maintain brevity while providing specific and informative details in their abstracts. We believe that authors may benefit from being mindful of the PICOTS framework when writing their abstracts to ensure important details regarding study design are captured.
a. Title: Abstracts should be titled to succinctly reflect the general study design (e.g., ‘Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of …’, ‘: A Cross-Sectional Study’, etc.) and content of the subsequent text i.e., the title should inform the reader of what the study is broadly about.
b. Background/Introduction: The introduction should inform the reader of what is known, what is not known, and what the present study aimed to discover/add. Therefore, it should provide relevant context/background on the current state of the literature and an explicit statement about the aim of the study using specific reference to the content of the subsequent text. In other words, as with the title, the statement should be brief but should use specific language that describes the present study. The introduction should be brief and without unnecessary detail. Authors may submit replication studies where there is no clear gap in the literature provided that they state that they state that similar/identical study/studies have been previously conducted but were unable to provide definitive evidence.
c. Methods: The methods section is the most important part of the abstract and should provide details regarding all the key components of the design and execution of the study. The subsequent parts of the abstract must make sense in the context provided by the methods and should be consistent with what is described there. It is understood that a 400-word abstract cannot provide all minutiae regarding the full study methodology. However, some description of the study setting, definition/identification of the study population, sampling/collection/generation/accessing/enrollment of individuals/samples/datapoints from a
dataset/population/resource, analytic techniques – whether statistical or laboratory . relevant variables, bias or possible sources of error at, and the appropriateness of the choice of study design are required. The methods section should clearly describe how information/data from the experiment/study was synthesized (summarized, described, etc.) and/or analysed (inferential statistics, data scientific methods, laboratory techniques). Regardless of whether studies are controlled, single-arm, or are surveys/KAPs/cross-sectional studies, it is imperative that the methods section clearly explains what samples, groups or subgroups are compared or analysed via any statistical or laboratory techniques. Please also provide details on ethical approval and consent, specifying whether informed consent (written or verbal) was obtained from participants or their guardians, and identify the approving authority for the study. If applicable, please provide the registration number.
d. Results: The results section should be written in the context of the preceding methods section. The study sample size must be stated in the results section where applicable. Whenever comparisons are made using statistical methods or values are computed using a model, then indices of precision or significance should be reported, and it should be clear. For example, if comparing the outcome across two study arms, a p-value should be reported to accompany the result of the hypothesis test. P-values should be reported till 3 decimal places unless p<0.001. If statistics such as prevalence or median survival are computed using a meta-analytic model or survival analysis method, then a confidence interval should be reported. However, for such statistics where no comparison is being made (i.e., prevalence or median survival in a single arm), reporting information such as ranges or interquartile ranges instead of confidence intervals is acceptable.
e. Conclusion: The conclusion should summarize key results and relate them to the study rationale stated in the introduction; this may be in the form of accepting or rejecting the initial hypothesis, answering the research question, or acknowledging the failure of the experiment to provide such answers despite appropriate execution of the study. The conclusion should acknowledge limitations briefly, such as by recognizing sources of bias, limitations, or the extent to which the results may or may not generalize. Finally, the section should briefly suggest scope for future research.
We recommend that authors refer to the CARE guidelines when determining the importance of information to include in their abstract. Abstracts must meet both of the following two criteria to be considered for peer review:
The abstract explicitly affirms that informed patient consent was obtained.
Neither the text nor any data or media included in the submission reveal the patient’s identity.
Failure to meet any one of the aforementioned criteria will result in the submission being returned without peer review.
Title: The title of the submission should explicitly identify that the abstract is a case report, preferably at the end of the title. It should also allude to the defining or unique elements of the case, which may include referring to any of the following.
The aim/scope of the review should be stated clearly. Emphasis is placed on a comprehensive methods section that thoroughly covers the article retrieval and selection process (databases searched, inclusion and exclusion criteria, etc.). Results should be interpreted appropriately, and the limitations of the findings discussed clearly. Quality assessment, certainty in evidence, publication bias, and heterogeneity are of immense importance – presenting authors will be expected to be familiar with these, even if the latter are only discussed briefly in their abstract, due to their importance in determining the impact of the findings and the high frequency with which they are presented and interpreted inappropriately.
The aim of the study should be stated clearly. The study population should be defined and ideally, where possible, a sample size justification should be provided. It should be stated clearly if cases and controls were or were not selected from the same population, and the means of recruitment (inclusion/exclusion criteria etc.) should be presented. The definition and implementation of exposures/risk and outcomes should be given. Moreover, the method chosen to achieve the target sample size from the pool of eligible candidates should be stated (random selection, selection of subsequent cases until size achieved, etc.) It should be clear whether or not there was use of concurrent controls, to what extent blinding was used, and if any analysis was performed to adjust for confounding.
The aim of the study should be stated clearly. The definition of the study population, sample size justification, and participation rates as well as eventual loss to follow-up should be provided. It should be evident whether or not participants from the exposed and unexposed arms were recruited simultaneously and from the same population, and the definition and uniform implementation of inclusion and exclusion criteria described. The evaluation of exposure status, such as whether different levels of exposure, frequency of exposure, and time between exposure and outcome should be discussed. Any analysis to control for confounding should be described.
The aim of the study should be stated clearly. The study population and selection criteria for participants should be specified, and a justification for why this would allow results to be generalized to the larger population of interest discussed. The method chosen to achieve the target sample size from the pool of eligible candidates should be stated (random selection, selection of subsequent cases until size achieved, etc.) Loss to follow-up should be described. The use of blinding, if any, should be described. Using appropriate statistical techniques to evaluate the intervention’s effect should be clear, and results presented and interpreted appropriately.
Abstracts should not include libelous or defamatory content. Material presented in abstracts should not violate any copyright laws. If figures/graphics/images have been taken from sources not copyrighted by the author, it is the author’s sole responsibility to secure the rights from the copyright holder in writing to reproduce those figures/graphics/images for both worldwide print and web publication. All reproduction costs charged by the copyright holder must be borne by the author.
Copyright ©2025 FMHCPS Official Website. All rights reserved.