Educational article: what gets accepted for presentation?—A study of submitted abstracts for the 2009 BAOMS Conference

• Published in: British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery 2010-06, Vol.48 (4), p.297-300
• Main Authors: Stewart, Samantha Brooke, Oeppen, Rachel S, Cascarini, Luke, Brennan, Peter A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abstract; Abstracting and Indexing as Topic; Bibliometrics; Biological and medical sciences; Conference; Congresses as Topic; Decision Making; Dental Records; Dental Research; Dentistry; Humans; Information Dissemination; Maxillofacial; Medical sciences; Mouth Neoplasms; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Peer Review, Research; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Salivary Gland Diseases; Societies, Dental; Surgery; Surgery, Oral; Technology, Dental; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; United Kingdom
• ISSN: 0266-4356; 1532-1940
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.12.008

Abstract The Annual Scientific Conference of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) provides an opportunity for colleagues to present papers to their peers, which can be beneficial both for professional development and for trainees to enhance their future career prospects. Each year far more abstracts are submitted than slots are available for oral presentation. These abstracts are reviewed by a paper selection committee, made up of several BAOMS colleagues. To our knowledge, there have not been any previous studies that have evaluated whether the type of study submitted (retrospective study, audit, prospective and so on) or the surgical sub-specialty is more likely to be accepted for presentation. Of 237 abstracts submitted for oral presentation at the 2009 conference, 99 were accepted (42% overall acceptance rate). Oncology and salivary gland disease formed the greatest proportion of total submissions (23%) followed by miscellaneous clinical papers (19%). The commonest type of submissions were retrospective studies (19%) followed by case report/series (15%). The greatest acceptance rate in this series was for orthognathic and TMJ papers ( P < 0.01) while for type of presentation, research/laboratory studies, technical procedures and randomised trials were most likely to be accepted ( P < 0.01 for all). It is possible that there are a certain number of slots allocated for presentation in each sub-category, which may increase competition in certain areas, but further work is necessary in this area. We recommend some general points for the successful acceptance of abstracts.