Writing winning abstracts

Writing winning abstracts

A guide on the qualities a good abstract possesses and what to avoid.

Published: 24 March 2021

Updated: 25 October 2022

This was published when the organisation was the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.


Key points covered in this guide

  • The purpose and importance of abstracts.
  • The key information which should be included in an abstract.
  • The common pitfalls of abstract writing.

What makes a winning abstract submission?

What are the common features of effective abstracts?

A good abstract will:

  • Adhere to all of the submission criteria as outlined in the abstract guidance documents.
  • Be an accurate reflection of the research study, ensuring that information is featured in the correct section:
    • The introduction clearly describes the background and states the purpose of the study in the form of the research problem.
    • The aims are relevant and have been addressed by the study.
    • There is sufficient information about the method(s) used (e.g. sampling strategy, response rate, ethical considerations, etc.).
    • The results are clearly articulated in the context of the study aim.
    • The discussion is clearly articulated in the wider context.
    • The conclusions are appropriate and based on the results.
  • Be well-written, using clear and concise language and appropriate style (i.e., using):
    • A professional, academic writing style.
    • The past tense.
    • The expanded form of abbreviations and acronyms when first referred to.
    • Proofread on at least two occasions prior to submission.

Common pitfalls of abstract writing

Our abstract review committee has listed the most common reasons for abstract rejection:

Title• Abstract title does not accurately reflect the study undertaken.
Introduction• Introduction does not fully relate to the study or include the research problem/question.
• Introduction does not explain the rationale and significance of the study.
Aims• Aims of the study are unclear.
Methods• Method and sampling approach are unclear.
• Methods do not fully address the aim.
• Insufficient methodological detail.
• Ethics approval was required but not sought.
Results• Data analysis is not clearly described.
• No results or preliminary results provided.
• Results are poorly articulated.
• Results do not fully address the aim.
• Results reported do not align with the methods used.
Discussion• Discussion does not link to the results reported.
• Lack of information to place the results into a wider context.
Conclusion• Study strengths and limitations are not identified.
• Conclusion is not specific or aligned to the discussion.

One-to-one support

Monday-Friday, 9am to 5pm
We’ll answer your questions, provide reliable professional advice, and point you towards the most up-to-date pharmaceutical information.

Did this learning help your CPD?

Don’t forget to record it in your MyCPD Revalidation
e-Portfolio.

Share your suggestions

Submit an idea for learning content, events, guidance or resources.