1. Presented by the ORS New Investigator Mentoring Committee Lou Soslowsky, PhD Penn Center for Musculoskeletal Disorders McKay Orthopaedic Research Laboratory University of Pennsylvania Tamara Alliston, PhD Chair, ORS New Investigator Mentoring Comm. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery University of California San Francisco

2. Presented by the ORS New Investigator Mentoring Committee Lou Soslowsky, PhD Penn Center for Musculoskeletal Disorders McKay Orthopaedic Research Laboratory University of Pennsylvania

3. Critical elements of a successful and clear abstract Qualities of outstanding abstracts Common reasons abstracts are rejected and how to avoid them Analysis of award-winning 2012 ORS abstract Information about the ORS abstract format, submission, and review process

4. Communicate your research to the scientific community Attract an audience – via podium or poster presentation Establish a record of accomplishment Convey technical detail and results Place your work within its scientific context Communicate the clinical implications of your work

5. Important and timely research question Compelling data Clearly stated hypothesis Clearly stated answer Well-written text and attractive figures Polished and proof-read document 1. Research 2. Message 3. Presentation

6. Choose an important research topic PRIOR to initiation of the study Choose high-impact questions PRIOR to initiation of the study Choose rigorous methods carefully PRIOR to initiation of the study Ensure that you have sufficient resources (personnel, time, money, etc.) PRIOR to initiation of the study

7. Ask colleagues about your ideas PRIOR to initiation of the study Perform a NEW, thorough literature review PRIOR to initiation of the study Read the primary literature, not just the review articles/book chapters PRIOR to initiation of the study

8. Consult a statistician PRIOR to the initiation of the study Outline study design and expected results PRIOR to initiation of the study Note that there is A LOT to do PRIOR to starting the study

9. Think about and discuss with colleagues what your data reveal. Articulate a hypothesis and conclusion that best convey the main idea of your work. The hypothesis of your abstract may not be identical to the one you set out to answer. The conclusion should match and answer the hypothesis The rest of the abstract supports this primary message.

10. Successful abstracts typically follow a conventional structure. This structure serves the reader by helping them find the information they need Introduction Methods Results Discussion Significance A writer can take advantage of this structure to better communicate their message Start early, get input from others, and proofread

11. Establish the importance of the subject Explain what is known State what is unknown, holes in knowledge, or what’s problematic with the known Introduce key terms or ideas with minimal jargon Conclude with a clear statement of the research objective, questions, hypothesis Do not provide a review of the field Present focused rationale leading to the hypothesis

12. Materials –What was used/examined? –Demographics, approvals (IRB, IACUC) Methods –What was done to answer the question? –How was it done? –How was the data treated/analyzed? –Sample size –Statistical analysis

13. Present results in decreasing order of importance (or chronologically, if that makes more sense), following the research questions at the end of the Introduction Avoid figures or tables as the subjects or objects of sentences

14. State the major results in the text (refer to figures and tables parenthetically, to avoid including data in the text) Do not duplicate data in the text, figures, and tables Probably room for 2-4 figures/tables (for most important/interesting results)

15. Most visual way to present key results and significant findings (figures) Great way to communicate findings to reviewers (who may be pressed for time during review process) Space-efficient way to present a lot of quantitative results (tables)

16. Describe how your data support the answers to the research questions or hypothesis Establish what is new and important by comparing your findings with those of others End with a clear statement (e.g., the implications of your findings) or with speculations based on the answers to your questions

17. Research question already asked/answered in literature Focus of population insufficient (patients, cadaveric material, animals, etc.) Fundamental flaw in methodology Sample size insufficient

18. Data obtained does not address research question Conclusions not supported by data Research question not deemed to be important/impactful Poorly written

19.  1. Do your homework PRIOR to study initiation  2. Research high impact questions  3. Focus your study and its presentation  4. Present a clear message – hypothesis and  answer  5. Ensure work is put in context

20. Thank you www.med.upenn.edu/pcmd

21. Tamara Alliston, PhD Tamara Alliston, PhD Chair, ORS New Investigator Mentoring Committee Department of Orthopaedic Surgery University of California San Francisco Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

22. Permission to use this abstract was granted by Joerg Holstein, M.D. (June 2012) NOTE: This abstract is from the ORS 2012 Annual Meeting and in the old format.

23. >50% Results & Figures <25% Introduction 25% Methods 25% Discussion & Significance NOTE: This abstract is from the ORS 2012 Annual Meeting and in the old format.

24. The ‘n’ and statistics can communicate your level of confidence in the data.

25. Clear, concise, and logical presentation of the facts. Include references to Figures.

26. Common but not required in ORS abstracts Visually evident Can effectively illustrate a dramatic result Require legends and legible figure notation

30. Answer the question posed by the hypothesis Hint: you can use the same words

31. Answer the question posed by the hypothesis Hint: you can use the same words

32. Answer the question posed by the hypothesis Hint: you can use the same words

33. Place work in scientific and clinical context Communicate your level of certainty

35. Submission Deadline: September 9, 2013 5pm Central Time New Online System

36. To submit the abstract you will need: Contact information for presenter Coauthor emails, affiliations, and disclosures Start early! It always takes longer than you think. A sample abstract proof from the ORS Abstract Submission Site

37. Automatic error check Payment “Your abstract (Control ID: 2014-A-21-ORS) has been submitted.” Review My Work

38. Print or E-mail Abstract Under “Review My Work”, Bottom of page: Option to print your submission E-mail confirmation of submission to yourself and authors

39. 250 ORS members serve as expert reviewers Each abstract is reviewed and scored by 4 reviewers Reviewers are blind to authors and affiliations If a conflict of interest arises, reviewers are reassigned Reviewers are selected based on the first 3 Keywords The order of the Keywords matters! Hint: Be sure to select the “right” Keywords and the order matters, so put the most relevant Keywords first. Reviewers Conflicts Assignment Process

40. . Superior -1 Good – 2 Acceptable – 3 Marginal – 4 Poor – 5 (Written comments will be required by Reviewer when giving score of 4 or 5) Podium sessions: abstracts scoring “1.0” to “2.0” Poster sessions: abstracts scoring 2.0-3.0 and 1.0-1.9 indicating poster only. All abstracts with a 4 or 5 - Topic Chairs and Program committee will review explanation of score given by reviewer. Scoring Presentations

41. Important and timely research question Compelling data Clearly stated hypothesis Clearly stated answer Well-written text and attractive figures Polished and proof-read document 1. Research 2. Message 3. Presentation

42. New Investigator Mentoring Events at ORS Annual Meeting in New Orleans Meet the Mentors Lunch Professional Advancement Series: Career Transitions: What Makes a Great Post-Doctoral Fellowship Work-Life Balance as a Woman in Orthopaedic Research Publishing Your Idea Poster Tours Grant Writing Workshop ORS Mentoring Website