TYPE OF PRESENTATION – ORAL AND POSTER
– Use line spacing of 1 with Font 10 (Times New Roman). Leave 1.5 cm margins both sides and justify the text.
– Maximum number of words: 300 (Title, authors, Institution and Key words are not included).
– Do not use paragraphs. In the event of using abbreviations and acronyms, explain them at the first time they are used in the text. Do not start sentences with numbers.
– Do not use tables or charts. They might be exhibited on the day of the oral presentation or in the poster text.
– Text division must obey the following order: title; authors; institution; objectives; methodology; results; conclusion; key words. For case reports, there is no need to follow such structure.
– 8 authors (maximum) are allowed (one author and seven co-authors) per paper.
– The author who submits the paper must be registered in the Event and his/her registration must be paid off.
– The presenting author must be registered in the Event as well and his/her registration must be paid off.
– Authors shall be mentioned by their first and last names, separating authors using comma. Eg.: Antônio B. Silva, Fábio Gomes Santos.
– Institution where the work has been carried out.
-Abstracts shall be written ONLY in ENGLISH
The evaluation criteria are the following:
– Systematic review of randomized studies with or without meta-analysis – Molecular – Studies in “omics” (Genomics, Transcriptome, Proteome);
– Randomized experimental studies – Molecular – Functional studies (in vitro / in vivo);
– Cohort studies – Molecular – Identification of biomarkers (with validation methodology);
– Case-control, ecological and cross-sectional studies;
– Case series – Molecular – Descriptive studies without validation or without control group
– Case report;
– Expert opinions.
– Approval by an Ethics committee;
– No need for a research Ethics committee under resolution 466;
– No description or evaluation by an Ethics committee.
– Proper description of the study with clear, replicable methodology, consistent results and adequate conclusion, compatible with the data presented. ClinicalTrials, Rebec or use of Equator methodology approved;
– Proper description of the study with clear, replicable methodology, consistent results and adequate conclusion, compatible with the data presented;
– Proper description of the study, but with poor methodology, consistent results and adequate conclusion, compatible with the data presented;
– Proper description of the study, but with a poor methodology (not replicable). results and/or conclusions not suitable for the data;
– Severe flaws in the introduction, methodology, results and conclusions;
– Not applicable. Methodology and results not described;
– Unpublished – new concept interpretation;
– Ratifies a known concept, but with optional use;
– Ratifies the classic concept of everyday use;
– Does not introduce a new concept;
– Funding from public agency;
– Funding from private agency;
– Self-funding or without funding.
– In the study subgroup, in clinical practice and/or social practice;
– In the study subgroup;
– Without clinical applicability or does not fit.