The Student Research Forum (SRF) is excited to announce the return of the International Student Research Conference (ISRC) in 2024. Building on last year's success, our team seeks to deliver a conference that is replete with rigorous science, heated discourse, and lighthearted fun.

Our goal is to provide students of medicine and allied health sciences with a platform to share their academic work, network with peers and colleagues, and engage with experts across an assortment of sessions, workshops, and panel discussions.

Prospective authors are encouraged to review the following submission guidelines to maximize their chances of acceptance and participation. We also suggest that they consider the themes of this year's conference. Abstracts are not required to pertain to these themes, but we suggest that authors are mindful of how their work relates to these themes.

Abstracts may be submitted under any one of six broad categories on the submission portal– these are not strict categories and have no bearing on the chances of an abstract being accepted serve only to help sort submissions. The aforementioned categories include:

a. Clinical Research

b. Case Reports

c. Bench Research and Animal Studies

d. Public Health

e. Education

f. Other

The scientific committee is grateful to all colleagues for their interest in the conference and willingness to share their work with us. In providing these guidelines, our intention is to ensure that authors are confident in our ability to recognize the quality of their work and so authors are able to align their submissions with the goals of the conference to maximize their chances of acceptance. We understand that authors may find these guidelines challenging given the 400-word limit. We want to emphasize that all abstracts will be evaluated with this constraint in mind, as well as the fact that this is a student conference. These guidelines are intended to help authors include key information that is important when describing their study.

There is no limit to the number of authors that may be included on an abstract, However, a medical student, nursing student, dental student, or undergraduate enrolled in a health science or biomedicine degree must be nominated as presenting author. The presenting author does not need to be listed as the first author. An individual may be listed as a presenting author on multiple abstracts but, if more than one of these abstracts is accepted, will only be permitted to present a single abstract – another student author will then be required to present the other accepted abstracts.

1. Abstracts must be titled and divided into the following four sections:​

a. ​Introduction/Background

b. Methods

c. Results/Case Presentation

d. Comment/Conclusions

2. Abstracts must be no longer than 400 words.

3. Abstracts must describe research that is related to biomedicine, healthcare, or a related field.

4. Abbreviations may be used but must be explicitly identified and explained the first time they are used in the text. Abbreviations should not be used in the title.

5. Studies that are complete or in progress with preliminary results and conclusions may be submitted. Proposals or studies in process without results may not be submitted.

6. Previously published work may be submitted. However, abstracts accepted at ISRC 2023 may not be submitted.

7. Abstracts submitted via email or other means will not be considered. All submissions must be made through the official portal linked on our website.

8. Incomplete submissions will be returned to authors without peer review.

9. Data derived from human subjects must be adequately anonymized. Case reports should not contain information in any medium that may betray the identity of the subject.

10. All methods sections should include a short phrase or statement from the authors confirming ERC/IRB approval (or provide the corresponding approval #), a waiver, or provide an acceptable rationale for why it was not sought. Case reports must explicitly state that patient consent was obtained.

11. Abstracts will be reviewed for plagiarism, which will be grounds for immediate rejection and, potentially, additional consequences for the authors' participation in the conference and future SRF events.

12. Case reports are eligible for submission but have distinct content recommendations (see below).​​

13. Narrative reviews, due to a lack of robust methodology, are not eligible for submission.​​

14. Abstracts should be written in prose. Bullet points are not acceptable.

Abstracts will be evaluated primarily for the rigor, appropriateness, and transparency of the methods and overall clarity of communication. The language of the text should be formal, scientific, and specific. All parts of the abstract should relate to one another in a logical sequence and, together, provide a clear summary of the study described.

Scientific novelty and impact are appreciated but are not expected to a great degree given that the conference is for student researchers. In studies where statistical methods are used, the chances of acceptance will not be affected by acceptance or rejection of null hypotheses/statistical significance of the results.

A challenge for authors will be to maintain brevity while providing specific and informative details in their abstracts. We believe that authors may benefit from being mindful of the PICOTS framework when writing their abstracts to ensure important details regarding study design are captured.

a. Title: Abstracts should be titled to succinctly reflect the general study design (e.g., 'Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of ...', ': A Cross-Sectional Study', etc.) and content of the subsequent text i.e., the title should inform the reader of what the study is broadly about.

b. Background/Introduction: The introduction should inform the reader of what is known, what is not known, and what the present study aimed to discover/add. 

Therefore, it should provide relevant context/background on the current state of the literature and an explicit statement about the aim of the study using specific reference to the content of the subsequent text. In other words, as with the title, the statement should be brief but should use specific language that describes the present study. The introduction should be brief and without unnecessary detail. Authors may submit replication studies where there is no clear gap in the literature provided that they state that they state that similar/identical study/studies have been previously conducted but were unable to provide definitive evidence.

c. Methods: The methods section is the most important part of the abstract and should provide details regarding all the key components of the design and execution of the study. The subsequent parts of the abstract must make sense in the context provided by the methods and should be consistent with what is described there. It is understood that a 400-word abstract cannot provide all minutiae regarding the full study methodology. However, some description of the study setting, definition/identification of the study population, sampling/collection/generation/accessing/enrollment of individuals/samples/datapoints from a dataset/population/resource, analytic techniques - whether statistical or laboratory . relevant variables, bias or possible sources of error at, and the appropriateness of the choice of study design are required. The methods section should clearly describe how information/data from the experiment/study was synthesized (summarized, described, etc.) and/or analysed (inferential statistics, data scientific methods, laboratory techniques). Regardless of whether studies are controlled, single-arm, or are surveys/KAPs/cross-sectional studies, it is imperative that the methods section clearly explains what samples, groups or subgroups are compared or analysed via any statistical or laboratory techniques. Please also provide details on ethical approval and consent, specifying whether informed consent (written or verbal) was obtained from participants or their guardians, and identify the approving authority for the study. If applicable, please provide the registration number.

d. Results: The results section should be written in the context of the preceding methods section. The study sample size must be stated in the results section where applicable. Whenever comparisons are made using statistical methods or values are computed using a model, then indices of precision or significance should be reported, and it should be clear. For example, if comparing the outcome across two study arms, a p-value should be reported to accompany the result of the hypothesis test. P-values should be reported till 3 decimal places unless p<0.001. If statistics such as prevalence or median survival are computed using a meta-analytic model or survival analysis method, then a confidence interval should be reported. However, for such statistics where no comparison is being made (i.e., prevalence or median survival in a single arm), reporting information such as ranges or interquartile ranges instead of confidence intervals is acceptable.

e. Conclusion: The conclusion should summarize key results and relate them to the study rationale stated in the introduction; this may be in the form of accepting or rejecting the initial hypothesis, answering the research question, or acknowledging the failure of the experiment to provide such answers despite appropriate execution of the study. The conclusion should acknowledge limitations briefly, such as by recognizing sources of bias, limitations, or the extent to which the results may or may not generalize. Finally, the section should briefly suggest scope for future research.

We recommend that authors refer to the CARE guidelines when determining the importance of information to include in their abstract. Abstracts must meet both of the following two criteria to be considered for peer review:

The abstract explicitly affirms that informed patient consent was obtained.

Neither the text nor any data or media included in the submission reveal the patient's identity.

Failure to meet any one of the aforementioned criteria will result in the submission being returned without peer review.

Title: The title of the submission should explicitly identify that the abstract is a case report, preferably at the end of the title. It should also allude to the defining or unique elements of the case, which may include referring to any of the following.

a. Pertinent components of the case presentation, such as history or examination findings

b. Results of investigations

c. Diagnosis/diagnoses

d. Interventions

 

Introduction: The introduction should highlight the unique, rare, surprising, or informative elements of the case with the express objective of demonstrating why it was reported. This can refer to aspects of the case that were hinted at or referred to in the title in greater detail, or additional features of the case that were part of its presentation, diagnostic evaluation, or management. The patient's condition should be explicitly identified i.e. the diagnosis is provided (undiagnosed/unknown/idiopathic is acceptable). The introduction should also refer to whether or not similar cases have previously been reported in the literature or if the authors believe that they are describing a novel scenario to the best of their knowledge.

Methodology: Although a case report does not have a methodology per se, authors are expected to provide a statement regarding informed written consent being obtained from the patient (or relevant surrogate authority/guardian), and a statement confirming that no data in the submission can reveal the patient's identity.

Case Presentation: This is the most important section of the abstract and should give readers sufficient detail to grasp the important details of the case. These include the presenting complaint or concern expressed by the patient and their clinical signs and symptoms. Additional features of the history, such as the social, family, and past medical histories may be reported if relevant or should be described as unremarkable. However, it is important that the reader is able to tell whether the diagnosis and management of relevant aspects of the case began with the clinical visit described by the authors, or if the patient had previously been evaluated or treated for the condition being reported by a different medical team (than that of the authors). Authors should describe the differential diagnosis developed based on clinical assessment and the subsequent diagnostic workup ordered by the team. The final diagnosis offered to the patient may then be described. This section should then describe the management strategy and extent to which the team was able to address the patient's concerns and deliver a successful outcome. This may include any challenges faced that may have substantially impacted the outcome or treatment plan, such as (but not limited to) inability to make a diagnosis, noncompliance, or loss to follow-up. If follow-up data are relevant to the case and available, they should be provided here.

 

Comment: The comment at the end of the abstract should highlight the educational value of the case by highlighting key learning points to the reader. This includes a brief reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the managing team's approach to diagnosis and treatment.

Authors may include a single figure or table that supports their results if they prefer, provided that these are original (figures or tables cited from other research works will not be accepted). This will not affect chances of acceptance and no distinction is made between submissions with a supporting figure/table versus those that communicate all necessary information within the text of the abstract. Figures or tables must never include any patient identifiers which could violate their privacy (e.g. patient name, medical record number, images without appropriate masking etc.).

a. Figures must be submitted as separate files in one of the following formats: JPEG, JPG, PNG, or TIFF.

b. The maximum file size for a figure should not exceed 10 MB.

c. Ensure figures are of a high resolution, with minimum dimensions of 500 x 500 pixels.

d. Figures should be clear and legible, with text labels and legends in a readable font size and color.

e. ​Table File Submissions

Tables must be submitted as separate files in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx). Excel files or tables converted to images will not be accepted.

Tables should be formatted using standard fonts (e.g., Calibri, Times New Roman) with a minimum font size of 11 pt.

Tables should be designed to fit within an A4 page layout (21 cm x 29.7 cm) with standard margins in portrait orientation.

The following information is provided to help authors maximize the likelihood of their articles being accepted by outlining the features of high-quality abstracts for various common types of research study. This list is not comprehensive, and other forms of research may also be submitted if they meet the criteria listed in the previous sections.

The aim/scope of the review should be stated clearly. Emphasis is placed on a comprehensive methods section that thoroughly covers the article retrieval and selection process (databases searched, inclusion and exclusion criteria, etc.). Results should be interpreted appropriately, and the limitations of the findings discussed clearly. Quality assessment, certainty in evidence, publication bias, and heterogeneity are of immense importance - presenting authors will be expected to be familiar with these, even if the latter are only discussed briefly in their abstract, due to their importance in determining the impact of the findings and the high frequency with which they are presented and interpreted inappropriately.

The aim of the study should be stated clearly. The study population should be defined and ideally, where possible, a sample size justification should be provided. It should be stated clearly if cases and controls were or were not selected from the same population, and the means of recruitment (inclusion/exclusion criteria etc.) should be presented. The definition and implementation of exposures/risk and outcomes should be given. Moreover, the method chosen to achieve the target sample size from the pool of eligible candidates should be stated (random selection, selection of subsequent cases until size achieved, etc.) It should be clear whether or not there was use of concurrent controls, to what extent blinding was used, and if any analysis was performed to adjust for confounding.

The aim of the study should be stated clearly. The definition of the study population, sample size justification, and participation rates as well as eventual loss to follow-up should be provided. It should be evident whether or not participants from the exposed and unexposed arms were recruited simultaneously and from the same population, and the definition and uniform implementation of inclusion and exclusion criteria described. The evaluation of exposure status, such as whether different levels of exposure, frequency of exposure, and time between exposure and outcome should be discussed. Any analysis to control for confounding should be described.

The aim of the study should be stated clearly. The study population and selection criteria for participants should be specified, and a justification for why this would allow results to be generalized to the larger population of interest discussed. The method chosen to achieve the target sample size from the pool of eligible candidates should be stated (random selection, selection of subsequent cases until size achieved, etc.) Loss to follow-up should be described. The use of blinding, if any, should be described. Using appropriate statistical techniques to evaluate the intervention's effect should be clear, and results presented and interpreted appropriately.​​​