SURGICON is an international congress with English as the official language. Being a surgical congress, each scientific paper should be related to the surgical field and be included in one of the 3 main scientific categories listed below. In order to submit a scientific paper, you should be registered as an Active participant, send your abstract prior to the deadline, and wait for the accepted abstracts to be announced. Each abstract can be submitted once per category (Oral Presentation, Poster or Debate) and only by one author who will register as an Active participant and will be the presenting author. In the case that the registered presenting author will not be able to present during the Congress, one of his co-authors can present the paper (only if the co-author is already registered as a passive participant and meets the eligibility criteria for active participation). In this situation, the registered presenting author must notify the OrganisingCommittee of this change by sending an e-mail to scientific@surgicon.ro. Failure to do so in maximum 24 hours prior to the congress will result in failure to receive the certificate. It is not allowed for two or more participants to send the same abstract. There is a maximum of 4 co-authors for each paper.
All accepted abstracts will be included in the Abstract Book. Scientific papers already presented during previous conferences will not be accepted. Each participant can send a maximum of 2 abstracts, one in the Debate Section and the other one for Oral/Poster Presentation.
The following types of presentations are accepted:
It answers a wide variety of questions regarding the body's response to current or potential health problems. The purpose of this qualitative research is to describe, explore and explain the health phenomena studied. In this particular type of presentation, the introduction should explain the reason for performing this study. The Materials & Methods should present how the data about the population involved in the study (human or animal test) was obtained. In the results section, you should include the outcome and the conclusions should emphasise the particularity of this original study.
It involves identifying a group that is already under a particular treatment or subject to certain factors, tracking them over time and then comparing the results with those of a similar group that was not affected by the treatment or exposure during the study (control group).
It is a collection of reports regarding the treatment of individual patients, thus a control group is not used, resulting in a study with little statistical valability.
It focuses on a clinical topic and answers a targeted question. An extensive search in the literature is directed at identifying articles that address the topic concerned. The studies are to be examined, evaluated based on their quality which includes or excludes them from the review and the results summarised in accordance with the initial hypothesis. In order for a review to be eligible as a scientific paper in SURGICON 2023 you must provide the references that you used (at least 10 articles published in peer-reviewed journals included in the data).
It is a statistical analysis that mathematically combines the results of multiple valid scientific studies on the same subject and reports their findings with a higher statistical power. In order for a meta-analysis to be eligible as a scientific paper in SURGICON 2023 you must provide the raw data and proof of the statistical work behind your paper.
It is a descriptive study where the observation of one or more patients allows the discussion of some interesting aspects of pathogenesis, diagnosis or treatment. The objective of the presentation is not to test a hypothesis, but to assert qualities of clinical research and to provide some useful data to peers. It should describe a particular case that encourages further research on the matter discussed and should include a short introduction, patient data, symptoms and diagnosis (both presumptive and definitive), treatment plans (components, administration, results/prognosis) and a conclusion.
CRITERIA | SUBCRITERIA FOR ORIGINAL STUDIES |
ORGANIZATION & SCIENTIFIC CONTENT (100 points) | Title is scientifically accurate & easy to understand (shorter than 12 words) 8 points Title is identified as any type of original study - observational or interventional 2 points - this does not enter the word count |
Introduction is clear and brief, appropriate for the subject - explicit statement of the main objective or question | |
RELEVANT Inclusion AND Exclusion criteria of the patients are specified in a clear manner 10 points ONLY Inclusion OR Exclusion criteria are specified 5 points |
|
Present the key elements of the study design Describe setting, locations, relevant dates - including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, data collection, complications of interventions or anything that applies Describe parameters followed and evolution of the patients Describe all the statistical methods used |
|
Specify the methods used to present and synthesise information, specify any potential confounders or effect modifiers and especially BIAS risk evaluation Set up primary and secondary objectives |
|
Results - report the number of patients, the eligible number of patients, patients that completed follow up and analysed | |
Results: Include descriptive data: demographic information, clinical or social Outcome data: describe the number of events of each outcome Main results: give the estimates and precision (95% CI) and, if applicable, mention statistical inference markers |
|
Report any subgroup analysis | |
Conclusion and Discussions Summarise primary, secondary and safety outcomes Discuss the limitations of the study Give warning over results which may have been affected by any confounding factors |
|
The information is presented in a clear and concise manner, grammatically correct, the word number limit is respected - if any is missing deduct all points. Relevance of the subject should be paramount - if the subject doesn’t revolve around important surgical information - surgical anatomy, surgical procedures, interventional techniques and everything else that qualifies deduct all points. |
CRITERIA | SUBCRITERIA FOR REVIEW/META-ANALYSIS |
ORGANIZATION & SCIENTIFIC CONTENT (100 points) | Title is scientifically accurate & easy to understand (shorter than 12 words) 8 points Title is identified as any type of review (systematic, literature, scoping, review of reviews, etc) 2 points |
Introduction is clear and brief, appropriate for the subject - explicit statement of the main objective or question | |
RELEVANT Inclusion AND Exclusion criteria are specified in a clear manner 10 points ONLY Inclusion OR Exclusion criteria are specified 5 points If irrelevant deduct all points |
|
Information sources AND Temporal frame specified 10 points ONLY Information sources OR Temporal frame specified 5 points If the temporal frame is older than 5 years deduct 1 point if relevant ( e.g. well studied techniques which suffered recent modifications should not include studies older than 5 years) - unless a landmark study is included If the temporal frame is older than 10 years deduct 3 points if relevant - unless a landmark study is included |
|
Specify the methods used to present and synthesise information | |
In Results include the total number of studies and participants - if in M&M deduct all points | |
Present results for main outcomes. If comparison is made show which procedure or group is being favoured, indicate the direction of the effect. If statistics are included AND statistical inference shown 10 points If statistics are included without statistical inference deduct 5 points. If relevant: in the case of opposing opinions about the topic, deduct 3 points for lack of mentioning |
|
Provide a general interpretation of the results and important implications and in relationship with the subject. If any limitations are known or observed and not mentioned, deduct 4 points. If the conclusion brings new unspecified before information deduct 7 points. |
|
The abstract shows a good grip of the information and is well researched - if there are any landmark studies they should be included. | |
The information is presented in a clear and concise manner, grammatically correct, the word number limit is respected if any is missing deduct all points. Relevance of the subject should be paramount - if the subject doesn’t revolve around important surgical information - surgical anatomy, surgical procedures, interventional techniques and everything else that qualifies deduct all points. |
|
Special Mention: If the Inclusion OR Exclusion criteria are established for patient inclusion and NOT for the selected studies, deduct 15 points from the final point count |
CRITERIA | SUBCRITERIA FOR CASE PRESENTATION |
ORGANIZATION & SCIENTIFIC CONTENT (100 points) | Title is scientifically accurate & easy to understand - the diagnosis or intervention of primary focus should be stated clearly (shorter than 12 words) - 8 points Title is identified as a Case Presentation 2 points - this expression does not fall under the rule of the word count |
Introduction Sets up a background using literature references - 2 points Briefly summarises why the case is unique and what does it add to the literature in pertinent manner - 8 points |
|
Case Presentation - Patient Information and Timeline De-identified patient specific information and main concerns and symptoms of the patient - 4 points The following items will be evaluated based on RELEVANCE: • medical, family, psychosocial, racial, genetic information - 2 points • past interventions and outcomes - 2 points • well organised timeline of the current episode or disease - 2 points |
|
Case Presentation - Clinical Findings Describe significant physical examination or anamnestic findings and important clinical findings If normal or irrelevant findings mentioned deduct 5 points |
|
Case Presentation - Diagnostic Assessment Diagnostic methods employed, diagnostic challenges, differential or presumptive diagnosis and, when applicable, prognostic characteristics - 10 points If normal or irrelevant manoeuvres mentioned deduct 5 points |
|
Case Presentation - Therapeutic Intervention Types of therapeutic interventions employed, administration of intervention, changes in therapy with explanations - 10 points Due to the word limit if explanation for changes is not mentioned do not deduct points |
|
Case Presentation - Follow-Up and Outcomes Clinician- and patient-assessed outcomes if available, important follow-up diagnostic tests, intervention adherence and tolerability 5 points Complications, adverse effects and unanticipated events 5 points If follow up was not done, it should be mentioned - if not mentioned deduct 5 points. If this criterion sums up to less than 5 points, deduct only the points for this criterion. |
|
Discussion and Conclusions Strengths and limitations in your approach, the rationale for your conclusions but with no inference on the general population due to statistical weakness, take away lessons 10 points If the conclusions are strongly stated and indicate inference deduct 8 points |
|
The abstract shows a good grip of the case and therapeutic interventions 10 points Word count more than 350 - deduct all points |
|
Relevance and uniqueness of the case. Does it bring anything new to the literature? |
The presentation type should be selected during the submission process. The Scientific Department reserves the right to change the Oral presentations to Poster presentations, with prior notification of the presenting author through email according to the availability of the Scientific Programme and the results of abstract evaluation by the specialists in the scientific committee.
All abstracts must have up to 300 words (the only exception being the abstracts for the Debate Competition, in which case the limit is 600 words) and respect one of the following structures:
The oral presentation should be clear, concise, coherent (following a logical line of presentation), non-redundant, non-contradictory. Each session has a jury, consisting of acknowledged physicians in the specific field.
This year, all oral presentations will be held onsite.
The following guidelines are meant to be considered recommendations from the Scientific Department of SURGICON and by no means are they compulsory or will hinder your presentation if not followed. We strongly encourage originality and new approaches, but we prefer to give active participants a strong base.
For this year's edition, the Poster Section of the Student Scientific Competition will be held onsite. The posters will be displayed at the main scientific venue and in the designated section of our website the entire duration of our congress.
A poster is a document which can synthetically communicate the results of one’s scientific work. Participants should keep in mind that they have 5 minutes for presenting their posters, so it is recommended to make presentations as synthetic as possible.
How to register for the Poster section of the Scientific Competition?
The posters will be posted in the designated section of our website the entire duration of our congress. The participants will have the opportunity to vote their favourite presenting author, deciding thus the winner of this section.
The following guidelines are meant to be considered recommendations from the Scientific Department of SURGICON 2023 and by no means are they compulsory or will hinder your presentation if not followed. We strongly encourage originality and new approaches, but we prefer to give those less experimented active participants a strong base.
As a doctor, one of the most important skills to have is guiding your patients to the right treatment for their needs. To do this, you need to show confidence, bring sensible arguments for your decision and present everything as clearly as possible in a short time. All of these qualities sound more like the arsenal of a public speaker or a debater than a doctor, but debating ideas and convincing people is the everyday hustle of all medical professionals.
SURGICON is the place where young minds come to discuss ideas, share experiences and form networks. In the spirit of this belief, we are hosting one Scientific Debate Competition. This section presents the opportunity to put face-to-face two different techniques in order to compare them or weigh the PROs and CONs of a surgical treatment.
There will be a moderator who will host the event and give the participants the right to speak. The moderator is also going to present a background story, an introduction or a short description of what is going to be discussed in order to set the status quo.
There will be 4 active participants per session grouped into 2 teams - each team presenting arguments for a different side.
They will take turns presenting their arguments (team A – team B – team A – team B). Each participant has 7 minutes to present their idea/argument and 3 more minutes to answer questions from the public and the opposing team. After all the participants present their arguments there will be a general round of questions that members from both teams will have to answer, regarding comparisons between the 2 presented techniques and particular situations in which one of them can prove to be more or less beneficial than the other.
In the end, one team will be selected as the winner by the jury and the public will vote for the best speaker who will be awarded a separate prize.
In order to join the Debate Competition, you must find a friend and register on our website as active participants. Both of you should register an abstract of no more than 600 words, describing the arguments and ideas you are going to present. In the Abstract submission form, both teammates must be mentioned by their full-name and in the order in which they will be presenting.
In the abstract, you must present the side you chose and the 2 arguments that will be the basis of your presentation. For more details regarding the required structure of the abstract please see the ‘’Abstract Guidelines’’ tab.