If you are interested in reviewing the submitted abstracts, email a brief statement of interest with your current contact information along with your clinical interest areas (Musculoskeletal & Sports Medicine, Neurological Rehabilitation, Practice Management & Leadership, Pain and Spine Medicine, General Rehabilitation, Pediatrics, and Quality Improvement) to: firstname.lastname@example.org with the subject line “Abstract Reviewer” by January 9, 2017.
- Presenters of accepted abstracts are expected to register and pay appropriate registration fees for at least the day of the presentation. No reimbursement or honoraria will be given for paper or poster presentations.
- Abstracts are to be no more than 300 words (not including title or author block).
- All research abstracts must include the following:
- Setting (Do not list formal institutional name.)
- Interventions (If your study does not contain any interventions, then insert: “Interventions: not applicable.”)
- Main Outcome Measures
- Level of Evidence
- Abstracts submitted as a case report must include the following:
- Setting (Do not list formal institutional name.)
- Patient OR Program
- Case Description OR Program Description
- Discussion (relevance)
- Independent peer reviewers will evaluate each abstract based on the components of the structured abstract.
Commercialism and Disclosure Statements
- Presentations that constitute promotion or advertising will be rejected. Pervasive or inappropriate use of commercial/trade names is not allowed. Generic names create a sense of impartiality that are the accepted standard of practice in submitting scientific abstracts and are strongly encouraged. No advertising matter of any description may be distributed, nor may any material be displayed that directly promotes the commercial interest of any particular company, enterprise, or the author(s).
- Presenters must disclose any relevant financial interest in relationship with or support from manufacturers of any commercial product(s). AAPM&R will determine if there is a conflict of interest and will take all appropriate steps to resolve.
- Presenters must disclose the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance status of medical devices and pharmaceuticals for the uses discussed or described in the presentation. "Off label" uses of a device or pharmaceutical may be described in the presentation as long as the lack of FDA clearance for this is also disclosed.
- Statements made in presentations are the sole responsibility of the author(s). Statements should not be viewed as, or representative of, any formal stance or position taken on any product, subject, or issue by the Academy or Elsevier.
- To be considered for any AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™-designated activities at the 2017 Annual Assembly (i.e., Best Research Podium or Poster Presentations), presenting authors must be medical professionals, MD or MD-equivalent, who are not employed by a pharmaceutical or device manufacturing company.
Podium Presentation: A 10-minute oral presentation of the methodology, results, and conclusions of completed studies followed by a five-minute question-and-answer period. Completed experimental studies or well-controlled epidemiologic studies may be presented in this forum.
Poster Presentation: A visual presentation that provides a forum for in-depth discussion of the objectives and methods of research in progress. Completed experimental studies, well-controlled epidemiologic studies, and nonexperimental studies, including case studies, may be presented in this forum.
Example of a Structured Abstract
CONTROL ID: 001
TITLE: New Wheelie Aid for Wheelchairs: Controlled Trial of Safety and Efficacy
AUTHORS: Jane Doe
INSTITUTIONS: Amazing Academic Medical Center
PRESENTATION TYPE: Abstract
CURRENT CATEGORY: General Rehabilitation
Objective (Abstract Only): To test hypotheses that people learning to perform aided wheelies (AW) with a new self-deploying wheelie aid (WA) are safer than those using the conventional wheelie (CW), are more successful at learning the skills, learn more quickly, and find such skills less difficult.
Design (Abstract Only): Randomized, controlled study.
Setting (Required for Abstracts and Case Reports): Wheelchair obstacle course
Participants (Abstracts Only): 42 subjects randomly assigned to the CW (n=23) or AW (n=19) groups.
Interventions (Abstracts Only): We performed static tests on a WA -modified wheelchair occupied by a test dummy, and attempted to teach each subject to perform a set of 14 wheelie-related skills.
Main Outcome Measures (Abstracts Only): Visual analog scale (VAS) of safety, percentage of subjects able to learn the skills, the time required, and subjective difficulty scores (from 1 for "very easy" to 5 for "very difficult").
Results (Abstract or Case Report) or Clinical Course (Case Reports Only): Up to 11° of antitip-device stability was available without the WA extending beyond the rearmost aspect of the rear wheel in the resting position. For the CW and AW groups, the mean ± standard deviation VAS safety scores were 43%±27% and 98%±2% (P
Conclusions (Required for Abstracts and Case Reports): The WA provides stability and wheelie-like function without interfering with maneuverability. Although both groups were equally successful, learning to perform AW is safer, fast, and less difficult than learning CWs
Level of Evidence - Abstract Submission Role: Level II
Financial Disclosures: None
Reprinted with permission.
Example of a Case Report
Systemic Weakness After Botulinum Toxin Type A Injections in a Child With Cerebral Palsy: A Case Report.
Mary A. McMahon, MD (Cincinnati Child Hosp Med Ctr/Univ Cincinnati Coll Med, Cincinnati, OH).
Setting: Tertiary care pediatric hospital.
Patient: A 15-month-old boy with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy (CP).
Case Description: The patient received botulinum toxin type A (Botox) injections secondary to increasing plantarflexion tone and an inability to tolerate ankle-foot orthoses. The botulinum toxin was reconstituted with 0.9% normal saline to a concentration of 10U/0.1cc. A total of 100U (11.5U/kg) were equally divided among 4 sites in each gastrocnemius muscle. Aspiration was done prior to each injection. On days 2 and 3 postinjection, he had decreasing tone in his upper extremities. On day 4, he presented with diffuse weakness, including loss of head control and poor feeding. His history was otherwise unremarkable, and his exam was notable only for diffusely decreased tone and weakness with tachypnea. Lung exam and chest x-ray were within normal limits and his oxygen saturation was 100%. He was admitted for intravenous fluids and close observation. He was observed for 48 hours, during which his strength and tone had a fluctuating pattern of improvement. At discharge, he had regained head control and his oral intake was at baseline.
Assessment/Results: At 6 weeks postinjections, the patient continued to demonstrate decreased tone in all 4 extremities. His therapist noted improved postural control and use of his upper extremities after the injections. His sleeping and eating both significantly improved. Further developments will be discussed.
Discussion: This is the first reported case, to our knowledge, of generalized weakness following botulinum toxin injections given at what is commonly considered to be a standard dose for children with CP.
Conclusion: Serious idiosyncratic reactions to botulinum toxin type A are possible despite using doses that are considered safe in children.