The material was supported by an educational grant from Ferring

HOW TO WRITE AN ABSTRACT

Paul Devroey, MD, PhDDirector of Education, IFFS

Consideration on Fertility and Sterility November 2009

Which Type of Abstract? Which Type of Study?

• Historic cohort study• Retrospective and analysis• Laboratory based study• Systematic review and meta-analysis• In vitro and in vivo study• Clinical study• Retrospective non-randomized study

Source Fertilty and Sterility November 2009

Which Type of Abstract? Which Type of Study? (continued)

• Retrospective cohort study• Retrospective case series study• Retrospective clinical study• Retrospective data review• Cross-sectional study

Source Fertilty and Sterility November 2009

Which Type of Abstract? Which Type of Study?

• Pilot study• Prospective cohort study• Meta-analysis• Systematic review

• Randomized controlled trialAbsent in Fertilty and Sterility November 2009

Source Fertilty and Sterility November 2009

Which Type of Abstract? Which Type of Study?

To be Avoided Preferred

Historic cohort study Prospective cohort study

Retrospective non-randomized study

Prospective randomized controlled trial

Retrospective case series study

None

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Meta-analysis

Preferred Type of Abstract and Study

Level of Preference

Pilot study ++

Prospective cohort study +

Randomized controlled trial +++

Meta- analysis ++

Preferred Type of Abstract and Study

Probability of Acceptance

Pilot study ++

Prospective cohort study +

Pilot study +++

Meta-analysis +++

Historic cohort study -

Pilot Study

• Innovative idea

• Mechanistic study

• Small sample

• Judgement positive

• Conclusion to start trial – Preferentially randomized controlled trial

Randomized Controlled Trial

• State of the art– Blinded

– Sealed envelopes

• Computer randomized list

• Primary end point (only one)

• Secondary end points

• Power calculation

• Level of significance

Randomized Controlled Trials (examples)

RCT Primary End Point

Replacement of one day 3 versus one day 5 embryo

Ongoing pregnancy rate

hCG triggering versus hCG agonist triggering in antagonist cycle

Number of MII oocytes

Programming of antagonist cycles with or without estradiol priming

Avoiding weekend oocyte retrievals

Proposal of Abstract Design

Objective Is day 5 ET preferential to day 3 ET?

Design RCT

Methods ICSI

Primary end point Pregnancy rate

Results 15% increased pregnancy rate after day 5 ET

Conclusions Day 5 ET is preferential to day 3 ET

References X Y Z

Which is the Perspective of an Abstract?

• To be presented on scientific meetings– Oral presentation

– Poster presentation

• To be cited as an abstract

• To be written in a peer reviewed journal

• To be cited as a paper

An Abstract Not Well Documented (example)

Objective Does varicocele influence testicular volume?

Design Retrospective clinical study

Methods 150 infertile patients with, and 299 without varicocele

Primary end point

Semen analysis, serum FSH, LH and testosterone levels

ResultsSemen density and serum FSH correlated with testicular volume in patients without varicocele

Conclusions Presence of varicocele influences testicular function

References Bonde JPE, et al Lancet 1998

Evaluation of Properly Performed Abstract in Fertility and Sterility November 2009

Design Abstracts (n=26)

Prospective 9 (35%)

Non-prospective 17 (65%)

Evaluation of Properly Performed Abstract in Fertility and Sterility March 2013

Design Abstracts (n=35)

Prospective 12 (34%)

Non-prospective 23 (66%)

Evaluation of Properly Performed Abstract in Human Reproduction 2012

Design Abstracts (n=23)

Prospective 6 (26%)

Non-prospective 17 (74%)

Evaluation of Properly Performed Abstract in Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2013

Design Abstracts (n=13)

Prospective 2 (15%)

Non-prospective 11 (85%)

Conclusions

Conclusions

• The majority of published abstracts does not comply with evidence-based medicine

• It is of paramount importance to initiatea correct study design

• Avoidance of studies with retrospective and historical nature

Conclusions

• Prospective studies are mandatoryand preferred

• Every abstract has to be viewed as a highly cited paper in a peer reviewed journal

CODA

• Accepting reseach in our centers based on– pilot studies

– prospective studies

– randomized controlled trials

• This type of research does not encounter competition

CODA

• High acceptance rates of abstracts and manuscripts are predictable

• Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are prone to be cited in meta-analysis