The advent of encouraging the submission of abstracts which do not strictly comply with the definition of “research”, but which fall under the category of “clinical effectiveness” has generated some debate on how submitters might distinguish between the two and the logistics of submitting their abstracts to the appropriate adjudicating body.

The Academic and Research Committee (A&R) and the Clinical Practice Evaluation Committee (CPEC) are keen to ensure that the “research” section of BGS meetings reflects the strength of research undertaken within the Society. Equally they are keen to ensure that work reflecting “clinical effectiveness” is appropriately recognised and that the methodological requirements for good audit, guideline development etc. are encouraged.

To this end the A&R Committee has endorsed the concept of ensuring that:

• Abstracts relating to “research” continue to be submitted to the A&R Committee for adjudication. These abstracts may be under the categories of: “planned research”, “work in progress”, or “scientific presentation”.
• Abstracts relating to “clinical effectiveness” – e.g. audit, guidelines, benchmarking, literature searches, service and practice review – are submitted to CPEC for adjudication. These abstracts will be submitted under the category of “Practice”.

To facilitate this process it should be noted that:

• Abstracts submitted to CPEC as Clinical Effectiveness will now be considered for publication as an abstract in Age and Ageing.
• The accepted posters will be assessed at the BGS meeting and will be accepted depending on specified criteria. Click here for examples of the criteria to be used.
• Abstracts should be submitted to the BGS under the correct category as research (planned research, work in progress or scientific presentation) or clinical effectiveness (practice). Abstracts may be moved between the A&R Committee and the CPEC following abstract adjudication if it is felt that they would be more appropriately presented under another heading.
• The distinction between Research and Audit often causes confusion. Guidance for distinguishing between them has been drawn up by the CPEC with particular input from Ian Taylor and Danielle Harari. Click here for details.
• The “Instructions to Authors” to be found on the BGS website has been amended to take account of these arrangements.
• The A&R Committee and CPEC hope these changes will strengthen the research base of meetings, while promoting improvements in clinical practice through clinical effectiveness.

John Potter
Chairman, Academic and Research Committee

Jonathan Potter
Chairman, CPEC

John Gladman
Associate Editor, Age & Ageing