Any member in good standing of the SOGC can submit one or more abstracts. Submissions will be accepted in either English or French. All submissions are subject to a pre-selection process. If accepted, the presenter must be a member of the SOGC, register for the ACSC and pay the registration fees. For more information on SOGC membership, click here .
If accepted, knowledge translation of your findings to clinicians and researchers would be facilitated, you may be eligible for an award, and a list of accepted abstracts with author names will be published in the JOGC.
Deadline: Submit a completed application form online no later than 5pm (EST) on Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Each abstract submission is anonymized and sent to three separate reviewers based on their field of expertise. The best of three abstracts in the various types of submissions are selected based on the top scores in each category eligible for awards. No abstracts below 42 points will be accepted. Oral and video presentations are assigned time slots based on their scores. Oral abstracts that are not assigned oral presentation time slots may be redirected to posters, if requested on their submission form. The same process is true of poster submissions, the top scores are assigned board allocation. Abstracts will be declined if they do not make the time slot/poster board availability limit based on their scores. The decision of the Abstract Program Committee is final.
The best of three abstracts are judged onsite during the ACSC. The winners in each type/category that are eligible for an award are determined by the highest scores from the onsite judging results.
NOTE: The total score is based on adding points from 3 reviewers’ scoring grids for a maximum of 60 points
(3 reviewers x 20 points per scoring grid = 60 points)
Was the study/ research question clearly stated?
Was the study/research design the most appropriate to answer the study question?
Were the methods clearly described?
Were the sample size and/or controls sufficient, if appropriate?
Where the technologies used state-of-the-art?
Were clinically relevant outcomes considered?
Were the results given in sufficient detail to make inferences?
Was some indication of the revision/significance of the results given, if appropriate (CI, p value, sensitivity/specificity, correlation, etc.)?
Was the statistical analysis (if any) appropriate to the data?
Is the abstract well written and easy to follow?
5 = excellent
4 = very good
3 = good
2 = satisfactory
1 = poor
Others may become available based on 2019 funding
SOGC Junior Members