Abstract Review Scoring

Below is the scoring system used by the ABA Program Committee and peers to review scientific abstract proposals for the Annual Meeting. Abstracts are scored from 0-20 and may be accepted for podium or poster presentation.

Background/Objective: From 1-3, with 3 being the highest possible. Does the abstract present a clear and concise objective or hypothesis? Is there sufficient background to explain why the study is being conducted?  

Methods/Experimental Design/Statistical Analysis: From 1-4, with 4 being the highest possible. Are the methods well-described and reproducible? Is the study design, sample size, and statistical analysis appropriate to answer the hypothesis? Well-designed randomized controlled trials with robust analysis will score higher than retrospective descriptive studies.  

Results: From 1-4, with 4 being the highest possible. Is the data relevant, well-organized, and comprehensive enough to address the study’s objective?  Is the information presented in a way that allows readers to draw clear conclusions? 

Discussion/ Conclusion: From 1-4, with 4 being the highest possible. Do the conclusions logically follow the data? Is the discussion meaningful and well-connected to the study’s findings? Is the take-home message clearly articulated?  

Impact: From 0-3, with 3 being the highest possible. How likely is the study to influence clinical practice? Does it have the potential to create significant changes in burn care? 0= No impact, 3= Potential for significant changes in burn care from the study.

Innovation: From 0-2, with 2 being the highest possible. Is the abstract novel, or does it present a fresh take on an existing concept?