MABB Abstract Competition

MABB invites all clinical laboratory science professionals and students and other health care professionals with interests in transfusion medicine to submit an abstract/poster to the MABB Annual Meeting. The abstracts will be organized into two categories, depending on the author. These categories are:

STUDENT
PROFESSIONAL LEVEL (includes laboratory professionals, physicians/residents, nurses)

Submissions are due April 1 before the upcoming MABB seminar at 4 PM EDT. Abstracts should be sent by e-mail to Dorothy Bergeron at dbergeron@umassd.edu. The submitting author will receive notification of receipt of the abstract electronically within 24 hours.

A suggested format is presented below for the professional level. Students may prepare their abstract using the format required by their educational program or the guidelines provided below.

Submission of an abstract implies a commitment by the author(s) to present the abstract at the upcoming MABB annual meeting. Expenses associated with the submission and presentation of the abstract are the responsibility of the presenter.

The abstracts will be judged by members of the Blood Bank community selected by the MABB Board of Directors and the winner in each category will receive special recognition during the luncheon on April 29th.

Abstract Preparation & Submission Guidelines

ABSTRACT PREPARATION

Types of abstracts

1. Scientific Abstracts should include the following sections.

Background: a brief statement of the purpose or why the study was done.
Study Design: a statement concerning the methods (what was done)
Results: a summary of the results observed.
Conclusions: a statement of the author's conclusions based on the results.

2. Case Study

Background
Case Report
Conclusions

3. Administrative Abstract

Background or Introduction
Project or Study
Conclusion

Guidelines for abstract preparation

1. The combined length of the abstract body, title and table should not exceed 2400 characters. A character includes all letters, numbers, and punctuation.
2. Scientific and administrative abstracts should include specific reference to numbers studied and statistical significance of findings, when appropriate.
3. The accuracy of the submitted abstract is the responsibility of the authors. Authors should prepare and proofread their abstracts carefully prior to submission.
4. All units of measure should be expressed in the metric system.
5. Laboratory values should be given in International (S.I.) units.
6. Generic names of drugs should be used.
7. Generic names should be used for commercial products. If trade names must be used, they should not be that of a single company.
8. The parent phrase of an abbreviation must be written in full (followed by the abbreviation in parenthesis) the first time it appears in the abstract. For example, hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC).
9. Avoid starting sentences with Arabic numbers.
10. The title of the abstract should be brief and indicate the content of the study. Abbreviations should not be included in the title.
11. Please do not list author titles or degrees. The author's affiliated institution should be identified as concisely as possible (include city, state). Authors’ names should not appear in the body of the abstract text.

Bias and conflict of interests

1. Presentations must be free of commercial bias. Reference to commercial products must be objective and rely on results of the study. The intent is to avoid promotional abstracts for specific purposes.
2. The author will need to indicate within the abstract submission any commercial involvement, support, or conflicts. Phrases such as "Funded by XYZ Corporation" or "(Name of author) is a member/grant recipient, etc., of ABC Corporation" can be used to note this information.

Acceptance/rejection of an abstract

MABB's goal is to give every author an opportunity to present an abstract/poster at a professional meeting. For that reason, very few abstracts will be rejected. However, the following provides a list of possible reasons why abstracts may be rejected or accepted with the understanding that the author will make revisions before the presentation.

1. Conclusions are not supported by data.
2. Conclusions are not presented: restating results are not conclusions.
3. Style is unacceptable (e.g., typographical errors or poor science construction).
4. Clear evidence of plagiarism in the text of the abstract.