• If the material offered has been previously published, or presented or accepted for presentation at another meeting, please provide details on the submission form.
  
  
• Acceptance of papers or posters does not preclude the necessity of paying registration fees for the annual meeting. All presenters must register for the meeting at appropriate registration fees where applicable.
  

Checklist and Examples:

The Council on Continuing Professional Development has developed a checklist for abstract preparation with the objective of assisting prospective program participants in preparing the best possible abstract for submission. All abstracts are considered equally for selection, and the quality of the abstract is the single most important factor in the Committee’s decision. Please follow the checklist and use the example to assist you.

Check for abstract content:

1. Is the title descriptive of the abstract?
2. Does the title avoid gratuitous statements and irrelevant information?
3. Does the abstract contain the four required headings for review?: Purpose, Methods, Results and Conclusions
4. Has your material been previously published? If so, the abstract should not be submitted.
5. Did you proofread your abstract? Conciseness, clarity, and care in the preparation of your abstract are important in the Council on CPD’s deliberations. Misspellings and typographical errors reflect badly on your scientific work.
6. Is your abstract 150 words or less? Has it been typed and does it fit entirely within the box provided? If not, your abstract will not be considered.
7. If you are applying for the COS/Coherent-AMT Award, have you provided the names of your supervisor and department head?

Example Abstract
Title: Number of daily refractions as a risk factor for head banging in ophthalmologists

PURPOSE: (Correct headings used) To determine if the number of daily refractions was a risk factor for ophthalmologists banging their heads against a wall. METHODS: The average number of refractions performed in a day and the number of times each ophthalmologist banged his/her head against a wall recorded prospectively in a group of 3,050 ophthalmologists. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis revealed a strong correlation (P<0.05) (Data and significance). Retina specialists tended to do no refracting and displayed virtually no head-banging behavior. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the number of daily refractions performed may be a significant factor in head banging behavior seen in ophthalmologists.