By David P. Steensma, MD

2009-07-01

Dr. Steensma is Associate Professor of Medicine and Oncology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of ASH News Daily 2009.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in ASH News Daily 2008 (Sunday’s issue, Section A).

Perhaps no aspect of the ASH annual meeting is quite as mysterious - or provokes as much delight and disappointment - as the process by which submitted abstracts are reviewed, ranked, and then shaped into the official meeting program. In 2008, the Program Committee, coordinated by ASH Secretary Armand Keating, MD, received a record-breaking number of submissions: 6,314 abstracts.

The annual meeting abstract review process underwent an important change in 2008. Reviewers were blinded to the names of abstract authors and their institutions, in order to diminish the risk of a biased review. Of course, authors who inserted their institution or organization’s name within the body of the abstract thwarted this protection; likewise, many reviewers have extensive knowledge of current research activity in their review category and could have guessed the origin of the abstracts. Based on anecdotal evidence, the experience of other societies that use blinded review, however, is that these guesses are surprisingly inaccurate. While no peer-review system can eliminate all subjectivity, this change should at least reduce irregularities.

Almost all of the 58 abstract category areas included at least one reviewer from outside of the United States and Canada. In fact, many review groups had several international referees. In 2008, 55.6 percent of annual meeting abstracts were submitted by international investigators representing more than 60 countries outside of the United States. Ensuring that international members continue to be regular participants in the abstract review process and all other aspects of the Society is a high priority for ASH.

Increased abstract numbers meant that a slightly smaller proportion of submissions were selected for presentation in 2008 than in previous years, although additional oral sessions had been added on Monday evening to help maximize the number of abstracts that could be presented. In 2008, 14.2 percent of reviewed abstracts were chosen for oral presentation, and 48.2 percent were selected as posters, while 13.1 percent of abstracts not picked for presentation were withdrawn by their authors. The convention center for the 2009 annual meeting is much larger than the one used in 2008. This will allow a larger number of abstracts to be presented in both oral and poster presentations. Because 70 percent of ASH members surveyed last year recommended elimination of the printed version of the second “publication-only” ASH abstract book, the other 24.4 percent of abstracts that were neither withdrawn nor selected for presentation at the meeting were published exclusively on the Blood Web site.

Each abstract submitted for review requires payment, which is not atypical of other scientific societies. These funds pay for abstract-related costs such as the online file submission system, technical support, and conference calls with the abstract reviewers.

All abstracts are reviewed by six or seven invited referees, supported by a coordinating reviewer. Individual scientific categories had as many as 189 submissions in 2008, and referees had less than three weeks to complete their review. It does not take much imagination to understand how rapidly reviewers must analyze abstracts; this highlights the need for authors to write clearly and unambiguously to ensure fair, accurate judgment of their work. Reviewers assign each abstract a score from 1 to 10, with 1.0 considered the best score possible and 10.0 unacceptable for presentation. The mean score is a general determinant of how an abstract will fare in the final program, but on rare occasions, abstracts with scores that would put them in the top of the poster range are elevated to oral presentations because of topicality or perceived impact. Reviewers also help identify which abstracts are potential Plenary Session candidates, but final selection of those six high-profile abstracts is done by the Program Committee, rather than by individual reviewers.

2008 was the second year in which ASH offered a late-breaking abstract deadline in October (in addition to the general deadline in August), for abstracts describing novel studies of high importance. The bar is quite high for acceptance via this mechanism - no more than six abstracts are chosen to be presented together in a special oral session on Tuesday morning, but the Society recognizes that some exciting research findings, particularly clinical trials, may not be available by the general abstract submission deadline and intends to continue this mechanism. Regardless of how your abstract fared in 2008 or will fare in 2009, it is important to keep in mind that having an abstract accepted for presentation is exciting, but good science and quality patient care are their own rewards.

Tips for Submitting Abstracts

• Clearly state a hypothesis
• Proofread carefully for spelling, grammar, and syntax
• Describe the data in unambiguous terms
• Provide quantitative data if relevant (rather than general descriptors such as “increased” or “decreased”)
• Include relevant statistics
• Clearly state conclusions and significance

Changes to the 2009 Abstract Submission Process

The Program Committee and ASH Secretary Charles Abrams, MD, abstract review coordinator for the 2009 Program, decided that several categories used during the 2008 submission process needed updating. Categories that received a small number of submissions were merged with similar categories, creating new categories with updated titles and descriptions. Detailed information on these changes will be provided in the annual meeting abstract submission materials. In some categories that received a large number of submissions in 2008, the abstracts will be split into two smaller and more manageable groups.

Perhaps the most significant change is in Category 901, “Health Services and Outcomes Research,” which was split into two discrete categories: “Health Outcomes Research” and “Health Services.” This change reflects the growing scientific interest among our attendees in evidence-based medicine, health economics (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit/cost-utility analysis, resource utilization), quality-of-life research, practice guidelines, informatics (telemedicine, computer decision support), education research, global health, and hematology in developing countries.

Submitting Abstracts

August 18, 2009, is the deadline to submit abstracts. Only electronic submissions are permitted.

back to top