ARVO Abstract help

[Adab]

I'm submitting an abstract to ARVO, and I'm wondering how to cite another article within the abstract. For instance, in the background section I write:
"Doobie et al. have shown that blah"
Should I write:
(a) "Doobie et. al have shown that blah (2003)"
(b) Properly cite the article at the end of the abstract?
(c) Replace Doobie by "A large study has shown..." or something generic like "It has been reported that...", "It has been shown..." etc.
I realize that citing something within an abstract is rarely, if ever, done - I have yet to find an ARVO and PubMed abstracts that does. But I personally think that directly citing the article that provides background for my study is helpful...but perhaps inappropriate for an abstract.
Any advice would be appreciated.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[twintiger32]

i'd personally go w/ something generic like "It has been previously reported that..."

you don't really cite in abstracts...

but you can take that with a grain of salt since i'm still learning how to write these myself!

 

[Mutis]

i'd personally go w/ something generic like "It has been previously reported that..."

you don't really cite in abstracts...

but you can take that with a grain of salt since i'm still learning how to write these myself!

Hi,

I've had some abstracts at the ARVO meeting, usually, there are no citations in the abstract, you write as twintiger32 said "It has been previously reported that...". You have a limit in the number of caracters, so you have to use them wisely. On the other hand if you have room and it is a very important reference, use choice (a).

The abstract will go for poster or paper (oral presentation), I usually write the bibliography in a section of the actual poster. For the oral presentation, you should mention the author or a reference if you use a figure from their paper for ilustration.

I hope it helps. deadline is coming up...

 

[Andrew_Doan]

If you have room, then add the reference in. However, as mentioned above, most people don't have references and use more general statements. Here is my abstract from last year.

Diurnal Fluctuation and Concordance of Intraocular Pressure in Glaucoma
Suspects and Ocular Hypertension Patients


A. P. Doan1, M. B. Zimmerman2, W. Alward1, E. Greenlee1, Y. Kwon1;
1Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, U of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa
City, IA, 2Biostatistics, U of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Purpose: The one-eye drug trial for glaucoma medications reducing the intraocular pressure (IOP) assumes that the diurnal fluctuation of the IOP in both eyes is concordant. Our study objective was to determine the diurnal variation and concordance of IOP measured in glaucoma suspect (Suspect) and ocular hypertension (OHTN) patients.

Methods: Amongst the 142 diurnal curves on record, charts were excluded from the study if there was evidence of: glaucoma, glaucoma surgery, trauma, use of anti-glaucoma drops, or an incomplete diurnal curve record. The remaining 83 diurnal curves (68 Suspect and 15 OHTN) were included in our analysis. The IOPs were measured using Goldmann applanation tonometry at 07:00, 10:00, 13:00, 16:00, 19:00, and 22:00. The diurnal curves were analyzed to determine if there was concordance in the diurnal fluctuation between the eyes. The average Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for the two patient groups was estimated to measure the linear association of IOP over the 6 time points between the two eyes within each subject. The correlation between the IOP OD and OS was first computed for each subject from each set of diurnal curves with the estimate of the average correlation calculated from the z-transform of these individual correlations.

Results: The pooled mean IOP were 14.9 and 23.1 mmHg for Suspect and OHTN groups respectively. The average correlations between OD and OS IOP were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.82) for Suspect, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.92) for OHTN. The standard deviation of the IOP between eyes within each subject was found to be similar for all the time points. This was at most 1.60 mmHg (95% CI: 1.37, 1.92) with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 10.76% for Suspect, and 2.63 mmHg (95% CI: 1.94, 4.07) with 10.06% CV for OHTN. Observed difference in IOP between eyes was less than 3.81 and 6.06 mmHg in 90% of Suspects and OHTN patients respectively.

Conclusions: These findings indicate the IOP of both eyes change in the same direction (positive correlation) and with similar magnitude. We conclude the diurnal variations in IOP between eyes are largely concordant.


Good luck!

 

[Adab]

Thanks everyone for the responses. I ended up going with the safest: "It has been previously reported..." Hope to see you guys in FL.