Medicines Management 2021, the 46th SHPA National Conference

24–26 Feb 2022, Adelaide Convention Centre, SA

Abstract review criteria
 

Criteria 1: Clarity of writing (includes adherence to the abstract preparation guidelines)

Unacceptable (1): The abstract preparation guidelines have not been followed and/or the abstract is completely disorganised or jumbled and is difficult to comprehend.

Good (2): The work outlined in the abstract is described in general terms and the language of the abstract is clear with minimal typos or errors.

Excellent (3): The abstract is clearly described, concise and well written using appropriate scientific language.

Criteria 2: Innovation / novel practice

Unacceptable (1): The work outlined in the abstract is not new or novel and has been described multiple times before.

Fair (2): The abstract outlines a somewhat novel topic or a new spin on previously seen work.

Good (3): The work outlined in the abstract is original or novel but is not fully realised in the abstract.

Excellent (4): The abstract describes a completely innovative or novel piece of work / topic which is of the utmost interest.

Criteria 3: Significance / Impact / Relevance to pharmacy practice

Unacceptable (1): The work outlined in the abstract has no or minimal impact on pharmacy practice.

Fair (2): The work outlined in the abstract makes some reference to the impact on pharmacy practice but is not well described.

Good (3): The abstract clearly outlines the impact of the work on pharmacy practice and its applicability (where relevant) to a range of practice settings.

Excellent (4): The abstract demonstrates how the work is leading practice to maximise impact on patient care.

Criteria 4: Methodology (Research abstracts and Pharmacy Practice) OR Reporting of the case (Case report abstracts only)

Research and pharmacy practiceCase reports
Unacceptable (1)The method or action description is unclear and there are no results/evaluation.There is no, or limited information presented about the patient and case.
Fair (2)The aim/objective is inadequately described. The methods or action and results/evaluation are present but are incomplete and/or superficial.The case report lacks detail and is not well described.
Good (3)The work described in the abstract has a clear aim/objective and the methods or actions and results/evaluation align with the aim.The case report contains all relevant details and includes the outcome or resolution.
Excellent (4)The work described in the abstract has a clear aim/objective which the method or actions accurately address. Results/evaluation and discussion are clear and comprehensive.The abstract comprehensively outlines all relevant details of the case and provides important lessons for pharmacy practice.