Call for abstracts

• Language of abstract: abstracts may be submitted in English (please use British spellings) or French. Please ask a native speaker to review your abstract before submitting. 

• Use only standard abbreviations and acronyms. Place special or unusual abbreviations/acronyms in parentheses after the full word appears for the first time. 

• Use generic names of drugs. 

• Express numbers as numerals. 

• Tables and graphs are not permitted in the abstract. 

• References are not required. 

• The person who submits the abstract is, by default, the corresponding author and is responsible for informing other authors of the status of the abstract. 

• The submitting/corresponding author is responsible for final preview of the content of the abstract and ensuring that all submitted information and details are correct. 

• The submitting/corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that someone is available to present at the event, preferentially in person, if the abstract is selected for either oral presentation or poster. Speakers will be granted approval to present virtually in exceptional circumstances only.  

• Submitting/corresponding author and co-author(s) details [1]: 

  • Full first and family name(s) of all authors, entered in the order that they should appear on the abstract. Please ensure that all names are spelt correctly.  

  • Affiliation details:

    • Institution: For MSF staff, list ‘MSF’ as institution  

    • Operational Centre (MSF Only):  List your primary operational centre / hub affiliation. 

    • Institution Address: For MSF headquarters (HQ) staff use the address of your HQ.  For MSF project staff use the address of your project. 

  • Contact details: email address (corresponding author only)  

[1] These details are required for submission purposes and communication with the corresponding author, however all abstracts are reviewed anonymously.

• Choose from either of the following abstract types: 

  • Scientific/operational research (which includes study protocols, pilot implementations and literature reviews); or 

  • Case study/case series 

• Abstract title – limited to 25 words in UPPER CASE 

• Abstract text – limited to 300 words (with 10% margin). We recommend using word-processing software (for example, Microsoft Word) for editing your abstract and counting the number of words.   

• We will give preference to abstracts that have not previously been published in a journal or presented at other conferences, but already published/presented research will not be automatically excluded. 

Your abstract should clearly and concisely give enough information about your research/case study to allow a reader to understand the following: why your research/case study was needed; what you did; what you found out; and, importantly, what your findings mean for patients, MSF operations, or more widely for the global humanitarian paediatric community. 

Scientific/operational research abstracts include all types of research, study protocols and pilot or programme implementations. They should be structured as follows: 

• Background and objectives: Describe the problem being studied and explain why it is important, ensuring that any relevant background information is included (setting, type of project, population being studied, pilot project being implemented etc.). Ensure that the main purpose and objectives of the study/pilot are clearly stated.  

• Methods: Describe the study design used to carry out this study (randomised controlled trial, cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study, prospective/retrospective, descriptive study), how data was collected and what methods were used to carry out the analysis. For pilot implementations, describe the pilot intervention and how impact or success was measured and analysed. Avoid overlap from the background section. 

• Results: Clearly but succinctly present the main findings of your study linking this information to the previously stated objectives and methods, where relevant. Include the most relevant data and highlight specific age groups or other characteristics with the most impactful results. For pilot implementations, describe the main outcomes of the pilot and how they link to the objectives.  

  Note– Abstracts with incomplete data will not be accepted, unless the submission is a study protocol or results are expected within 2 months of the submission deadline.  

• Conclusions: State clearly the main take home message(s) of your study/pilot and why they are interesting. Describe the significance of your results or the potential impact of your pilot intervention and generalisability to other contexts. Propose next steps where relevant (avoid saying ‘more research is needed’) and briefly mention any limitations of your study.     

Alternative section titles can be used for research that does not fit these headings e.g. study protocols [2] for research that has not yet been carried out may use the following structure: Background and objectives; Study design; Expected results; Discussion.  

Case study/case series abstracts are reserved for clinical case descriptions and should be structured as follows: 

• Introduction: Briefly describing the background and the focus of the case study, including what is already known on the topic/condition, any relevant specific information related to the context and why your case is worth writing about. 

• Case description: Provide a chronological description of the case presentation with key clinical details (medical history, initial presentation, examination findings, clinical evolution), laboratory and imaging results (including negative results, where relevant), management (medications given including dosage, supportive care) and outcome.  

• Discussion: State clearly the main take home message of your case and why it is unique (without repeating from the introduction). Identify any lessons learned and propose areas for further research, if relevant.   

Tip:Put yourself in the shoes of another clinician treating a similar patient.  Does your case study provide insights that are not already available in the literature?

[2] Study protocols are less likely to be accepted for oral presentation.

Ethical oversight

All submitted abstracts must have given consideration to ethical implications. Responsibility for ensuring ethical oversight lies with the submitting author. 

All research studies require review and approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethical Review Board (ERB) of the research institute, as well as the equivalent IRB/ERB of the country where the research took place (where relevant), before being undertaken. Please refer to your local institute for details of relevant IRB policies. Some abstract submission types may not be subject to ethical review due to the nature of the work e.g. descriptions of routine monitoring and evaluation activities, literature reviews. 

For MSF submissions, see below for specific guidance on MSF ERB requirements.  

MSF submissions only

See MSF Science Portal for all available MSF ERB documents. 

Full details of MSF ERB requirements and the research template to be submitted to the ERB for review, can be found here:  

MSF research ethics framework - guidance document 

MSF ERB ethics review research template 

The MSF ERB exempts the following types of study from formal ERB review, if the Medical Directors take responsibility for addressing ethical issues:  

A posteriori (retrospective) analysis of routinely collected clinical data from pre-existing, established programs; and 

Surveys using the MSF ERB pre-approved standardised protocols for Vaccination coverage surveys; Mortality surveys; and Nutrition surveys.  

For more information, please see: 

Exemption criteria: Retrospective analysis of routinely collected clinical data from pre-existing, established programs 

Standardised mortality surveys 

Requests for exemption should be completed and approved by the relevant Medical Director prior to submission: 

Exemption template for retrospective analysis of routinely-collected clinical data from pre-existing, established programs 

Exemption template for surveys based on standardised intersectional survey protocols approved by MSF ERB 

For any studies that do not fall into the above categories (including case studies, pilot implementation of new tools/devices) ethical issues should be addressed by the Medical Director who is responsible for ensuring that the abstract fulfils MSF ethical standards.  

Consent

All case studies must have obtained informed consent from the patient(s) or parent(s)/carer(s) (in the case of a child).  You will be asked to attest that you have obtained the appropriate written or verbal consent(s).  Patient consent is in addition to the ethical oversight (outlined above), and institutional approval for submission to the Paediatric Days (outlined below).  

Institutional approval

It is important that the relevant institutional permissions have been sought for any research work or case study to be publicly presented at the Paediatric Days, in addition to ethical oversight. For MSF staff, permission to submit must be granted for ALL abstracts, regardless of ethical considerations, from the respective Medical Director of the Operational Centre that carried out the study/work. Please go through the usual hierarchical channels to obtain this permission.  

Conflict of Interest

You must disclose any conflict of interest and failure to do so may lead to withdrawal of the abstract. A conflict of interest exists when any individual involved in a study stands to benefit from the work (e.g. financially, personally). This may create potential bias in the results or influence the study in other ways. A conflict of interest does not automatically exclude the abstract from acceptance and full disclosure of all actual or potential conflicts of interest is recommended. 

• Abstracts can be saved as a draft in the abstract submission system and modified until the submission deadline. 

• No changes can be made to the abstract once they have been submitted as final.  

• If selected, the abstract may be reviewed by a medical editor and suggestions for improvement made before publication. 

• Submission of an abstract constitutes consent to publication of the abstract and associated poster or slide presentation (e.g. on relevant MSF websites, as part of conference proceedings, virtual platform), and the allocation of a unique identifier number (DOI - Digital Object Identifier), if selected. 

• Active consent to be recorded, and the publication of recordings will be obtained at a later date for all presenters. 

• Any potential conflict of interest must be declared. 

Abstracts are graded according to quality and clarity of content, importance of findings, relevance to humanitarian paediatrics and the specific topics chosen for the event, potential to improve quality of care or impact current practice, and novelty. All abstracts are reviewed anonymously by at least 2 different reviewers (usually 3) and scores collated to give an average total score. All abstracts are considered for either oral presentation or poster. Notification of the outcome will be sent to the submitting/corresponding author.  

 For more information, please contact paediatricdays@msf.org