Review criteria

1. Originality

1.1. Is the title relevant to the content of the abstract? (1pt) Does the title clearly describe the project method? (1pt)

1.2. Is the background topic/clinical situation and its significance clearly described? (2pt)

1.3. Is the aim or purpose of the study clearly stated? (1pt)

1.4. Is the work original? (2pt)

1.5. Does it present new data, or a new perspective that has rarely/never been considered before? (2pt)

1.6. Is the work completed, or does it show very strong promise of being completed in time for the conference? (1pt)

2. Methodology and Design of study

2.1. Research: has research ethics approval been granted? OR Quality Improvement: has the project been registered? (1 pts) *

2.2. Do the aims/objectives clearly outline what the project had set out to achieve? (2pts)

2.3. Is the research method (study design), or quality improvement framework appropriate and clearly reported? (2pts)

2.4. Are the outcomes clearly defined? (2pts)

2.5. Is the data collection process appropriate and clear? (recruitment, sampling, data collection procedures) (2pts)

2.6. Are data analysis procedures appropriate and clear? (2pts)

3. Results & Contribution to the hand therapy field

3.1. Are the main findings clearly described? (2pts)

3.2. Does the abstract demonstrate adequate knowledge of the subject matter? (2pts)

3.3. Is the conclusion justified in relation to the data and/or analyses? (2pts)

3.4. Is the significance of the project clearly stated? (2pts)

3.5. Is the topic of scientific, methodological, or theoretical importance in relation to the field of hand therapy? (2pts)

4. Language

4.1. Is the abstract organised according to the appropriate subheadings? (2pts) (background, aims, method etc.)

4.2. Is the abstract clearly written? (use of medical/scientific jargon is acceptable, used appropriately and in context of research or quality improvement projects) (2pts)

Score legends:

For questions out of 2 points: 0 = No, 1 = Partly, 2 = Yes

For questions out of 1 point: 0 = No, 1 = Yes

*Research projects must show evidence that ethics approval has been granted (with exception as appropriate i.e. review articles (Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, Scoping Review) or case-series)

Any study (research or quality improvement) that includes patient outcome data (e.g. Chart Audits) should be treated as Research and must indicate that ethics approval has been granted; An ‘ethics exemption’ will no longer be accepted for ‘chart audits’.