About FOEM Contact FOEM (312) 445-5712

Research Competitions Guidelines

General Rules and Requirements for Participation

Competition Descriptions and Specific Guidelines

Case Study Poster Competition

Clinical Pathological Case Competition (CPC)

Oral Abstract Competition

Resident Research Paper Competition

Research Study Poster Competition

New Innovations in Emergency Medicine

Download a PDF of the Research Competitions Guidelines

General Rules and Requirements for Participation

Entrants must be members in the American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians (ACOEP) at either the Student, Resident, Associate, or Active levels.
The residency program, hospital, or school affiliated with the entrant must be a member of the FOEM Research Network (FRN).
All electronic submissions must be submitted online by the applicable deadline. Late entries will not be accepted.
All protected health information must be eliminated in compliance with Federal laws prior to submission. Violation of patient confidentiality by failure to de-identify the submitted information is grounds for disqualification.
Research submitted to FOEM competitions must be in the designated format for the specific competition. Applicants are not allowed to submit the same project for multiple competitions.
Files submitted to accompany applications must be in one of the following formats:
- An unprotected Microsoft® Word® 97-2003 binary (.doc) or XML (.docx) file for all documents.
- An unprotected Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation binary (.ppt) or XML (.pptx) file for all presentations.
- Graphics (x-rays, CT/ MRI/ ultrasound, photographs) are to be optimized for display at 1024 x 768 pixels in one the following formats: Joint Photographic Experts Group (.jpg or .jpeg), Portable Network Graphics (.png). Videos must be in Windows Media Video (.wmv) or MPEG-4 Part 14 (.mp4).
- Audio files must be in Windows Media Audio (.wma) or MPEG-1/ MPEG-2 Audio Layer III (.mp3).
- Graphics, audio files, and video files must be included as separate files even if embedded into a presentation.
Presentations must use Arial 26 point or larger font and contrasting text/ background colors.
Abstracts must be no more than 500 words.
References must be submitted in a separate document in format consistent with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in their Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7250)
Programs disqualified from competitions for unethical behavior, including but not limited to plagiarism or academic dishonesty, may be banned from future competitions for a period of time to be determined by the officers of FOEM.

Return to top

Competition Descriptions and Specific Guidelines

The Foundation for Osteopathic Emergency Medicine (FOEM) sponsors five specific competitions during the calendar year. These are the Case Poster Competition, Clinical Pathological Case Competition (CPC), Oral Abstract Competition, Research Paper Competition and Research Poster Competition. Each has its specific requirements for participants and presentation formats which are strictly adhered to.

Return to top

Case Study Poster Competition

The Foundation’s Case Study Poster Competition is scheduled annually during the Spring Seminar of the American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians (ACOEP). The competition is open to all emergency medicine professionals that are ACOEP members.

Competition Format

Accepted Posters will be placed on digital display for a specific time prior to the beginning of the competition. During this time, conference participants will be allowed to view the poster prior to the presentation period.

Each presenter will be assigned a time frame in which they will present their poster to an audience of physicians and their peers. Posters will be digitally displayed in an interactive forum with a variety of presenters presenting simultaneously. Presenters will be expected to present their poster and answer questions multiple times within their presentation time frame. Judges will make rounds to each poster presenter in the room and judge the presenter on the poster content and presentation. At the end of the presentations, judges will adjourn to discuss their grading of the posters. Student/residents and faculty will be judged in 2 separate tracks, but only residents receive awards.

Competition Requirements

All entries must be submitted on the designated form, found on the Foundation’s website or at the end of this document by January 31^st. Entries received after this date will not be accepted.

All applicants will be notified of their acceptance or non-acceptance by the Foundation via email by March 1 annually. Accepted applicants will be provided with the date and times for display and judging.

Case Report Format

Any submission that does not follow the formatting or submission requirements will not be considered for acceptance in the competition.

Formatting: All manuscript documents must be submitted in Microsoft word documents. Text must be in 12-point times new roman font. The abstract and manuscript must be double spaced and must contain continuous line numbering in the left-hand margin. All footnote numbering must be in superscript format (Ctrl shift +) with the number following punctuation. Headlines for each portion of the case report should include: ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION, CASE REPORT, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, and REFERENCES. These headers must be bolded and capitalized. The entire manuscript must be 1750 words or less (excluding the abstract, legends and references).

Cover Letter – Should be addressed to FOEM board and be written by the presenter of the case report. The cover letter should include: a brief statement of justification for inclusion in the competition, a statement on conflicts of interest, address and complete contact information of the presenter and any grants received in conjunction with the project.

Title Page: Should include the title of the presentation (100 characters or less), all authors with corresponding titles, institutions, departments, city, state and contact emails, word count and clearly identifies whom is the corresponding/presenting author

IRB Documentation: Evidence of IRB approval, institutional policy or signed attestation by the corresponding author in the cover letter that institution does not require IRB approval for case reports and images

Abstract: Should be in narrative form and is limited to 100 words or less. The abstract should provide a brief overview of the manuscript and be submitted as its own separate page.

Introduction: Describe the context of the case and explain its relevance and importance. Describe whether the case is unique. If not, does the case have an unusual diagnosis, prognosis, therapy or harm? Is the case an unusual presentation of a common condition? Or an unusual complication of a disease or management? Describe the instructive or teaching points that add value to this case. Does it demonstrate a cost-effective approach to management or alternative diagnostic/treatment strategy? Does it increase awareness of a rare condition?

Case Report: The case should be reported in the usual case presentation sequence. The participant should describe the history of present illness, physical examination, medical investigations (laboratory values with reference ranges, radiographic images etc.), emergency department treatments and the patient’s outcome.

Discussion: Report a literature review of the current diagnosis. Include when applicable the prevalence, pathophysiology, symptomology, diagnostic strategies and treatments. These should include references from the literature when available.

Conclusion: Provide a summary of the diagnosis and its importance to emergency medicine

References: Must be listed in the order that they appear in the text. References must follow the American Medical Association Citation Style Guide except for the following: List up to three authors, before putting et al, delete spaces between publication year, volume, issue, and page numbers, and the DOI should be removed from all references. Journal names must also be abbreviated and italicized

Images: All images must be submitted on a separate page, be de-identified and must include contrasting black or white arrows clearly pointing to important findings. Markers must be referenced in the legend.

Poster Format

Posters must be supplied as a one-page PowerPoint presentation in widescreen (16:9) orientation to the Foundation’s staff prior to the conference. No physical posters should be printed or transported, as FOEM competitions are 100% digital.

Posters should follow the same format as the original case manuscript and must include the following headers: INTRODUCTION, CASE REPORT, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, and REFERENCES.Charts, graphs, and images should be included as applicable. Posters not meeting these criteria will have points deducted at the time of judging.

Case Poster Awards

The top three student/resident poster presenters will receive a written certificate, suitable for framing, from the Foundation and monetary awards of $500, $250, and $125, respectively. Additionally, all three winning presenters will receive paid admission to the Foundation’s Gala (held at the ACOEP Scientific Assembly) at which time they will receive an award denoting their winning status. Travel expenses will not be provided to this function.

Abstracts from the poster presentations will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, e.g., WestJEM, JAOA, or the ACOEP's quarterly publication, The Pulse. While the Foundation cannot ensure publication, we will endeavor to have these published. If you wish to withhold your abstract from publication, you must notify FOEM in writing.

Judging Criteria

Area	Item	Options	Score
I. Relevance and History
	A. Relevance to Emergency Medicine
		Highly relevant to Emergency Medicine	5
			4
		Moderate relevance to Emergency Medicine	3
			2
		Did not demonstrate relevance to Emergency Medicine	1
	B. Introduction and History
		Complete introduction and pertinent history provided	5
			4
		Partially complete introduction and history	3
			2
		Significant omissions in the history or poor introduction	1
II. Differential Diagnosis
	A. Breadth of the differential diagnosis
		Appropriately broad differential	5
			4
		Generally broad differential but missing key system pathology	3
			2
		Narrow differential diagnosis	1
	B. Life-threatening etiologies covered
		All pertinent life-threatening etiologies are included in the differential	5
			4
		A few unlikely but pertinent life-threatening etiologies are not covered	3
			2
		Significant pertinent threats to life are missing from the differential diagnosis	1
	C. Obscure pathology weighted appropriately
		Obscure etiologies covered but not to the detriment of common disease processes	3
			2
		Obscure etiologies dominate the differential	1
III. Clinical Discussion
	A. Clinical Discussion
		Clinical discussion is clear and concise	5
			4
		Clinical discussion is clear but not concise	3
			2
		Clinical discussion is unclear	1
	B. Integration of Presentation and Conclusions
		Discussion clearly links and elegantly transitions between presentation and conclusions	5
			4
		Discussion is disjointed but adequately transitions between presentation and conclusions	3
			2
		Discussion is disjointed and does not transition well between presentation and conclusions	1
IV. Poster and Presentation
	A. Poster follows appropriate format (introduction, HPI, clinical and test findings, treatment plan with justification, conclusion)
		Complies with the standard format	5
			4
		Complies with the standard format but omission of one section	3
			2
		Uses non-standard format or multiple omissions	1
	B. Tables and figures are clear and legible
		Appropriate text and graphic size, easy to see pertinent information	5
			4
		Text too small or large, graphics blurry but discernable, challenging to see pertinent information	3
			2
		Exceedingly crowded text, unable to discern pertinent information from graphics	1
	C. Appropriate reference list provided
		Comprehensive list of references provided	5
			4
		Excessive or somewhat sparse list of references provided	3
			2
		Clearly inadequate list of references provided	1
	D. Spelling and grammar
		Correct spelling, use of technical terms, and grammar	5
			4
		Rare errors in spelling, use of technical terms, or grammar	3
			2
		Frequent errors in spelling, use of technical terms, or grammar	1
V. Overall Impression
	A. Overall impression of the poster
		Exceptional quality	5
			4
		High quality	3
			2
		Poor quality	1
	B. Overall impression of the presentation
		Exceptional quality	5
			4
		High quality	3
			2
		Poor quality	1

Return to top

Clinical Pathological Case Competition (CPC)

The Foundation’s Clinical Pathological Case (CPC) Competition is scheduled during the ACOEP’s Scientific Assembly held annually during the early fall. This fun, challenging and spirited competition draws a large crowd from academia and the general population of the Assembly by pitting residents against program faculty as difficult cases presented by residents and solved by faculty discussants.

To participate, residency or fellowship programs meeting criteria described in the General Guidelines must submit one complete application which includes the names of both a resident/fellow and faculty member who will represent the program, the case and solution, and the required entrance fee of $150, by the submission deadline of July 31^st annually. Applications received after this deadline will be returned to the institution. The application is found in the Competition Section of the Website

Any institution found to withhold information necessary to solve the case at the time of submission or presented by the Resident Presenter that has not been made available to the Faculty Discussant will automatically disqualified.

Scholarly Activity will be allocated to Faculty Discussants and will be acknowledged in a formal letter from the Foundation. The roles of the Resident Presenter, who must supply the case and a Faculty Discussant, who will solve the case, are described below.

Resident Presenters’ Role

The named Resident or Fellow Presenter must meet the criteria described in the General Requirements Section.
Presenters must select a case from the current or recently completed academic year of training that was challenging and of interest to other emergency physicians. Presenters should have personal knowledge of the case and should be one in which they were involved. Examples of cases are the typical presentation of an unusual disease or an atypical presentation of a common disease. Cases that are impossible to diagnose without further information or studies not usually done in the Emergency Department will not be accepted.
Presenters must submit a complete patient history that has all patient identifiers removed; failure to remove patient identifiers immediate disqualify the resident and institution.(See General Rules)
Patient related information should include all information available to the physician in the emergency room. All images and complete studies should be included if they were preformed in the ED. Failure to remove all patient identifying information is grounds for disqualification. FOEM will blind the information about the residency before it is sent to the faculty discussant.
This information must be submitted in the format described in the General Requirement section, item 6, page 4.
The best cases present a collection of historical facts, physical findings and test abnormalities which, when put together by an astute emergency physician in a logical manner, suggest a final diagnosis to the unusual case.

CPC Format

Resident Submission

Case reports must be submitted in writeable Word^© documents described on page 4 and have 1.5” margins, with a header bearing the name of the institution, and Resident Presenter in the upper right hand portion of the header. Pages must also be numbered. The reports should provide the following information in this order:

Physical Findings, including complaint; history of present illness, history (medical, surgical, family); allergies; medications; review of systems; physical examination (including vital signs).

Tests Ordered, including all x-rays, EKGs, EEGs, CAT Scans, laboratory tests and other diagnostic procedures ordered. All images for each study should be included.

Test Results, please do not interpret any tests or laboratory findings

Brief Discussion of the ED course of treatment, if helpful in solving the case; however, all information available to the emergency physician must be included

The solution to the case must be submitted on a separate page titled, Case Solution, as part of the Case Report. This must include all references written in a standard editorial format.

The Resident Presenter is required to present the submitted case report and final diagnosis.

Faculty Discussant

All physicians presenting as a Faculty Discussant, must hold core faculty or faculty status in the residency or fellowship program which they are representing.

Faculty Discussants will receive a case, selected at random, to solve by August 15^th. The case will contain all information submitted by the presenting institution. Discussants should review the case as submitted to determine that all tests and results mentioned in the case have been submitted. It will be the responsibility of the Discussant to notify Foundation staff of missing items within ten days of receipt. The case will be sent directly to the address preference submitted on the application.

The Faculty Discussant will be required to prepare a differential diagnosis and speculate on the final diagnosis and disposition of the case. He or she will have 30 days to solve the case, prepare the required PowerPoint presentation and submit the final presentation to the Foundation by September 15^th. Changes in the presentation received after that date will not be incorporated.

Presentation Format

Resident Presenters will be allocated five (5) minutes to present their case, without revealing the final diagnosis. Presentations may include a description of the history and physical examination, presenting findings and tests ordered.

Faculty Discussants will be allocated fifteen (15) minutes to present their findings leading to the solution and speculated diagnosis of the case.

The Resident Presenter will return to the podium for a ten (10) minute presentation that will reveal the final diagnosis and disposition of the case.

Award

Resident Presenters and Faculty Discussants will be judged separately, identifying the top three presentations in each area. The top three Resident Presenters will receive monetary awards of $500, $250, and $125, respectively.

Additionally, all winning Resident Presenters will receive paid admission to the Foundation’s Gala (held at the ACOEP Scientific Assembly) at which time they will receive an award denoting their winning status. Travel expenses will not be provided to this function.

CPC Judging Criteria

Resident presentation scoring

Area	Item	Options	Score
I. Differential Diagnosis
	A. History
		Complete pertinent history provided	5
			4
		Partially complete history, no misleading information	3
			2
		Significant omissions or misleading information	1
	B. Examination
		Complete pertinent examination provided	5
			4
		Partially complete examination, no misleading information	3
			2
		Significant omissions or misleading information	1
	C. Emergency Department course
		Explained any unexpected evolution in the case or no unexpected changes during the ED course	3
			2
		Pertinent information is missing	1
II. Overall Oral/ Visual Presentation
	A. Quality of slides
		Appropriate text and graphic size, easy to see pertinent information	5
			4
		Text too small or large, graphics blurry but discernable, challenging to see pertinent information	3
			2
		Exceedingly crowded text, unable to discern pertinent information from graphics	1
	B. Oratory skills
		Interesting to listen to, uses appropriate terminology	5
			4
		Somewhat monotonous, occasionally uses technical terms inappropriately	3
			2
		Extremely monotonous or frequent misuse of technical terms	1
	C. Time management (separate from penalty for exceeding allowed time)
		Appropriate pace and cadence	3
		Somewhat rushed or drawn out, advances slides somewhat fast	2
		Exceedingly rushed or drawn out, advances key slides too fast to obtain necessary information	1
III. Appropriate Studies Provided
	A. Data provided
		Complete, appropriate studies provided	10
			9
			8
		Partial studies provided, key items present, no misleading information	7
			6
			5
		Partial studies provided, key items incomplete, no misleading information	4
			3
			2
		Incomplete studies interfering with making the diagnosis, intentionally misleading information is provided	1
	B. Additional data
		Resident adds pertinent withheld data in the summary and discussion	-2
		Resident did not withhold pertinent data	0
IV. Case Solvability/ Fairness
	A. Quality of case
		High quality case, intriguing	5
			4
		Good case, interesting	3
			2
		Poor case, simple or straightforward diagnosis	1
	B. Solvability
		Challenging but solvable	5
			4
		Solvable	3
			2
		Not solvable or "give-away" diagnosis	1
	C. Relevance to the practice of Emergency Medicine
		Clearly demonstrated relevance to Emergency Medicine practice	3
			2
		Did not demonstrate relevance to Emergency Medicine practice	1
	D. Final Diagnosis
		Resident's rationale for the final diagnosis was well supported	5
			4
		Resident's rationale for the final diagnosis was not well supported or the Resident did not provide a rationale for the diagnosis but the Resident and Faculty agree on the diagnosis	3
			2
		Resident and Faculty disagree on the final diagnosis and the Faculty's rationale is superior to the Resident's	1
	E. Fairness
		Diagnosis can be made by reasoning with available information and without studies not routinely done or available in the ED	5
			4
		Studies are needed to make the diagnosis that are beyond the capability of the ED (e.g. PET scan, fungal culture, etc.)	3
			2
		Impossible to reasonably come to the diagnosis without additional information (e.g. findings only seen on post-mortem examination, tissue pathology, etc.)	1

Faculty presentation scoring

Faculty discussants will be evaluated on the following categories: differential diagnosis, overall oral/visual presentation, discussion/decision making, and diagnosis (in context of solvability).

Return to top

Oral Abstract Competition

The Foundation’s Oral Abstract Competition is scheduled annually during the Scientific Assembly of the American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians held in the fall. The Competition fis open to all emergency medicine professionals that are ACOEP members..

To participate, entrants must submit a completed application and abstract describing their research, by the submission deadline of July 31^st annually. Applications received after this deadline will be returned to the institution.

Abstract: This will provide the context for the study, its purpose, procedures utilized, main findings and conclusions. It should highlight new and important outcomes of the study or observation. All abstracts must reflect the accuracy of the research reported and be of no more than 500 words in length.

Research Study Abstract Format

Title - The title should reflect and concisely describe your research project. Authors - Include authors name, degree and institutional affiliation.

Introduction/Background - Why is the topic you have selected a problem that needs to be addressed? What is missing from the field of study that your study is going to address? Provide a one-sentence summary of the rationale for the study question.

Objective(s) - What does this study intend to resolve? Provide a one-sentence description (eg, "To determine…," "To establish…") of the study's primary objective. Authors may choose to include key secondary objectives.

Methods - A short paragraph discussing the design, setting, patients, and interventions (Refer to the descriptions below). This section describes how the study was carried out.

Design - A statement of the study's basic design (eg, randomized controlled trial, double-blind, cohort, survey, cost-effectiveness analysis). Note: Make

sure you include in the design statement a notation that the research study was approved by the IRB (institutional review board)

Setting - A one-sentence description of the clinical circumstances of the setting (eg, general community, primary care center, hospitalized care).

Patients (or other participants) - A brief description of the key eligibility criteria of the study's participants. The total number of the participants must be included and how many participants were included in each group of the study (ie study group(s), control group).

Interventions—A brief description of any interventions administered. (e.g. OMM, medications, etc.)

Main Outcome Measure(s) - A brief description of the study’s outcome measurements. (e.g. blood pressure, symptom scores, patient satisfaction scales)

Results - A brief summary of the main results along with declarations and explanations of any important findings. Authors should include the study’s relevant statistical information (e.g. confidence intervals, levels of statistical significance).

Conclusion - How does this study add to the body of knowledge on the topic? Provide a brief summary of the study's conclusions directly supported by the reported evidence. Authors may include clinical applications and any recommendations for additional study.

The application and accompany abstract will be evaluated for its pertinence to emergency medicine and validity. If accepted, the entrant will be notified within 30 days of the deadline date and be requested to submit a multi-slide PowerPoint presentation containing the following information.

Presentation Format

Presenters will be allocated a total of ten (10) minutes for their presentation based on the following:

An introduction explaining the question, problem or treatment on which the research was based.
The investigative methods utilized.
Data, tables and figures validating and supporting the research findings.
Discussion of the research findings.
References.

Awards

Students/residents and faculty will be judged in 2 separate tracks, and only students/residents will receive awards. The judges will identify the top three presentations based on the criteria below. The top three presentations will receive monetary awards of $500, $250, and $125, respectively.

Evaluation Criteria and Guidelines

Title Descriptive of study	No	Some agreement	Accurate Title
Score 1:	1	2	3
Research Question/Hypothesis	Vague/poorly defined question	Some question definition-at least 2 components of PICO (Patient/Intervention/ Comparison/Outcome)	Well-developed question-meets all components of PICO criteria	Exceptional-meets all PICO criteria, also relevant--passes the "so-what" test
Score 2:	1	2	3	4
Originality	Many similar studies	Some innovation	Innovative Study	Unique Approach
Score 3:	1	2	3	4
Study Design	Unable to answer study	Partially addresses question	Good design, addresses question	Excellent design-answers questions and also addresses confounding variables
Score 4:	1	2	3	4
Statistical Analysis	None	Inappropriate or inaccurate	Descriptive statistics only	Full statistical analysis
Score 5:	1	2	3	4
Data Presentation	Raw data	Data summary	Comparative data present	Detailed analysis
Score 6:	1	2	3	4
Tables/Graphs	None	Confusing or inaccurate	Basic	Visually interesting and innovate
Score 7:	1	2	3	4
Conclusion Support	Unsupported or inaccurate	Incomplete data support	Some support	Supported
Score 8:	1	2	3	4
Discussion of Limitations	None	Incomplete	Complete
Score 9:	1	2	3
Impact	Poor	Supports current practice	Stimulates further work		Practice changing
Score 10:	1	2	3		4
References	Minimal	Limited	Comprehensive
Score 11:	1	2	3
Level of Evidence (LOE modifier)	RCT interventional study with adequate power, OR systematic review of Level 1 studies, OR prospective diagnostic study applied “gold standard”, OR economic study with appropriate sources and analyses, OR appropriately designed & executed basic science study.		1.3
	RCT of lower power (<80% follow up, no blinding, improperly randomized), OR prospective comparative data, OR retrospective study, OR systematic review of Level 2 studies, OR economic analysis based on limited data, OR appropriately designed basic science study but limited data.		1.2
	Case controlled study, retrospective comparative study, OR systematic review of Level 3 studies, OR economic analysis but poor estimates, OR adequately powered but slightly flawed basic science study, OR cohort study without “gold-standard”		1.1
	D. Case series without controls, OR poorly designed economic analysis, OR inadequately powered flawed basic science study		1
	E. Expert Opinion		1

Return to top

Research Paper Competition

The Foundation’s Research Paper Competition is held annually during the Scientific Assembly of the American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians in the fall. Entrants submitting their papers in this competition will have their papers evaluated by a panel of physician-researchers who will select up to three papers which will be recognized for this award.

The Foundation reserves the right to withhold these annual awards, if the panel of judges deems the quality of the papers insufficient or lacking in substance significant enough to grant the award.

Requirements

Research entries are limited to one paper per author. Papers with multiple resident or fellow authors may be submitted; however, all prizes will be split between authors and only one author will be identified as the presenting author.
Applications for this award must be received by July 31^st annually.
Winning authors will be notified by September 1^st annually and will be required to attend the Competition personally, if unable to attend or find a substitute presenter, the award will be presented, however monetary awards will be withheld.
Winning author(s) will be required to submit a PowerPoint presentation as described in the General Requirements on pages 4-5 by September 15^th. No changes will be accepted after that time.

Paper Submission Format

Papers submitted for review will contain the following elements:

Title Page: This will contain all information in the title to retrieve the article electronically, including author names and affiliations, disclaimers and sources of financial or other support if any, that facilitated the research.
Abstract: This will provide the context for the study, its purpose, procedures utilized, main findings and conclusions. It should highlight new and important outcomes of the study or observation. All abstracts must reflect the accuracy of the research reported and be of no more than 500 words in length.
Research Study Abstract Format
Title - The title should reflect and concisely describe your research project.
Authors - Include authors name, degree and institutional affiliation
Introduction/Background - Why is the topic you have selected a problem that needs to be addressed? What is missing from the field of study that your study is going to address? Provide a one-sentence summary of the rationale for the study question.
Objective(s) - What does this study intend to resolve? Provide a one-sentence description (eg, "To determine…," "To establish…") of the study's primary objective. Authors may choose to include key secondary objectives.
Methods - A short paragraph discussing the design, setting, patients, and interventions (Refer to the descriptions below). This section describes how the study was carried out.
Design - A statement of the study's basic design (eg, randomized controlled trial, double-blind, cohort, survey, cost-effectiveness analysis). Note: Make sure you include in the design statement a notation that the research study was approved by the IRB (institutional review board)
Setting - A one-sentence description of the clinical circumstances of the setting (eg, general community, primary care center, hospitalized care).
Patients (or other participants) - A brief description of the key eligibility criteria of the study's participants. The total number of the participants must be included and how many participants were included in each group of the study (ie study group(s), control group).
Interventions—A brief description of any interventions administered. (e.g. OMM, medications, etc.)
Main Outcome Measure(s) - A brief description of the study’s outcome measurements. (e.g. blood pressure, symptom scores, patient satisfaction scales)
Results - A brief summary of the main results along with declarations and explanations of any important findings. Authors should include the study’s relevant statistical information (e.g. confidence intervals, levels of statistical significance).
Conclusion - How does this study add to the body of knowledge on the topic? Provide a brief summary of the study's conclusions directly supported by the reported evidence. Authors may include clinical applications and any recommendations for additional study.
Introduction: This will provide the background for the study, stating its objective or hypothesis.
Methods Section: This section will describe the selection of the participants, including eligibility and exclusion criteria and should explain how and why the researcher chose the method. The methods, apparatus, and procedures should be described in sufficient detail to provide other researchers wishing to reproduce the results the ability to do so. Statistical methods should be described clearly to provide the reader with access to the data to verify the results of the study. All computer software and programs should be identified in this section.
Results: This section should clearly explain the results in a logical sequence utilizing text, tables and illustrations to illustrate the most important findings first. All data presented in the tables and figures should be repeated in the text of the paper. Main observations should be summarized in this section.
Discussion: This section focuses on the new and important aspects of the study and its conclusion. It should link conclusions to the research goals, but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not supported by the study data.
References: This section should include references to original research sources that are directly linked to this research, if possible. A small number of references to key work are usually sufficient.
Tables: Tables supporting the research data should be included and numbered sequentially as they appear in the text. Each table should have a brief title and explanatory information placed in footnotes, not in the heading.
Illustrations or Figures: Illustrations and/or Figures should be professionally presented as should photographs or laboratory data. Each should be numbered sequentially as the appear in the text and have a brief explanation under the figure or illustration. These should be identified in such fashion as “Fig 1: explanation.”

For further detailed instructions and the latest revisions for biomedical manuscript preparation please got to http://www.lcmje.org

Awards

Utlizing the Judging criteria described below, judges will evaluate Research Papers, identifying the top three papers submitted. However, it should be noted that the Foundation reserves the right to withhold or combine any award should it deem that sufficient suitable research has not been submitted that warrant the presentation of this prize. If awarded, the top three monetary awards will amount to a total of $3,500. Typically, first place receives $2,000, second price receives $1,000, and third place receives $500. Students/residents and faculty will be judged in 2 separate tracks, and only students/residents will receive awards.

All winning presenters will receive paid admission to the Foundation’s Gala (held at the ACOEP Scientific Assembly) at which time they will receive an award denoting their winning status. Travel expenses will not be provided to this function.

Evaluation Criteria and Guidelines

Title Descriptive of study	No	Some agreement	Accurate Title
Score 1:	1	2	3
Research Question/Hypothesis	Vague/poorly defined question	Some question definition-at least 2 components of PICO (Patient/Intervention/ Comparison/Outcome)	Well-developed question-meets all components of PICO criteria	Exceptional-meets all PICO criteria, also relevant--passes the "so-what" test
Score 2:	1	2	3	4
Originality	Many similar studies	Some innovation	Innovative Study	Unique Approach
Score 3:	1	2	3	4
Study Design	Unable to answer study	Partially addresses question	Good design, addresses question	Excellent design-answers questions and also addresses confounding variables
Score 4:	1	2	3	4
Statistical Analysis	None	Inappropriate or inaccurate	Descriptive statistics only	Full statistical analysis
Score 5:	1	2	3	4
Data Presentation	Raw data	Data summary	Comparative data present	Detailed analysis
Score 6:	1	2	3	4
Tables/Graphs	None	Confusing or inaccurate	Basic	Visually interesting and innovate
Score 7:	1	2	3	4
Conclusion Support	Unsupported or inaccurate	Incomplete data support	Some support	Supported
Score 8:	1	2	3	4
Discussion of Limitations	None	Incomplete	Complete
Score 9:	1	2	3
Impact	Poor	Supports current practice	Stimulates further work		Practice changing
Score 10:	1	2	3		4
References	Minimal	Limited	Comprehensive
Score 11:	1	2	3
Level of Evidence (LOE modifier)	RCT interventional study with adequate power, OR systematic review of Level 1 studies, OR prospective diagnostic study applied “gold standard”, OR economic study with appropriate sources and analyses, OR appropriately designed & executed basic science study.		1.3
	RCT of lower power (<80% follow up, no blinding, improperly randomized), OR prospective comparative data, OR retrospective study, OR systematic review of Level 2 studies, OR economic analysis based on limited data, OR appropriately designed basic science study but limited data.		1.2
	Case controlled study, retrospective comparative study, OR systematic review of Level 3 studies, OR economic analysis but poor estimates, OR adequately powered but slightly flawed basic science study, OR cohort study without “gold-standard”		1.1
	D. Case series without controls, OR poorly designed economic analysis, OR inadequately powered flawed basic science study		1
	E. Expert Opinion		1

Return to top

Resident Research Poster Competition

The Foundation’s Research Poster Competition is scheduled annually during the Scientific Assembly of the American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians (ACOEP). The competition is open to all emergency medicine professionals that are members of ACOEP.

Competition Format

Photos of winning posters will be placed on the Foundation’s website for a period of time and recognition will be placed on the website and noted to the winner’s institution.

Competition Requirements

All entries must be submitted by July 31st annually. Entries received after this date will not be accepted.

All entries must include an abstract as a writeable Word© document (.doc) of 500 words or less.

All applicants will be notified of their acceptance or non-acceptance by the Foundation via email by August 30th annually.

Research Study Abstract Format

Title - The title should reflect and concisely describe your research project.

Authors - Include authors name, degree and institutional affiliation.

Methods - A short paragraph discussing the design, setting, patients, and interventions

(Refer to the descriptions below). This section describes how the study was carried out.

Design - A statement of the study's basic design (eg, randomized controlled trial, double-blind, cohort, survey, cost-effectiveness analysis). Note: Make sure you include in the design statement a notation that the research study was approved by the IRB (institutional review board)

Setting - A one-sentence description of the clinical circumstances of the setting (eg, general community, primary care center, hospitalized care).

Interventions—A brief description of any interventions administered. (e.g. OMM, medications, etc.)

Main Outcome Measure(s) - A brief description of the study’s outcome measurements. (e.g. blood pressure, symptom scores, patient satisfaction scales)

Conclusion - How does this study add to the body of knowledge on the topic? Provide

a brief summary of the study's conclusions directly supported by the reported evidence. Authors may include clinical applications and any recommendations for additional study.

Poster Format

Poster must be supplied as a one-page PowerPoint presentation in widescreen (16:9) orientation. No physical posters should be printed or transported, as FOEM competitions are 100% digital.

An introduction explaining the question, problem or treatment on which the research was based.
The investigative methods utilized.
Data, tables and figures validating and supporting the research findings.
Discussion of the research findings.
References.

Posters not meeting these criteria will have points deducted at the time of judging.

PowerPoint Format

Poster must be supplied as a one-page PowerPoint presentation in widescreen (16:9) orientation. No physical posters should be printed or transported, as FOEM competitions are 100% digital.

Research Poster Awards

Students/residents and faculty will be judged in 2 separate tracks, and only students/residents will receive awards. The top three poster presenters will receive a written certificate, suitable for framing, from the Foundation and monetary awards of $500, $250, and $125, respectively. Additionally, all presenters will receive paid admission to the Foundation’s Gala (held at the ACOEP Scientific Assembly) at which time they will receive an award denoting their winning status. Travel expenses will not be provided to this function.

Evaluation Criteria and Guidelines

Title Descriptive of study	No	Some agreement	Accurate Title
Score 1:	1	2	3
Research Question/Hypothesis	Vague/poorly defined question	Some question definition-at least 2 components of PICO (Patient/Intervention/ Comparison/Outcome)	Well-developed question-meets all components of PICO criteria	Exceptional-meets all PICO criteria, also relevant--passes the "so-what" test
Score 2:	1	2	3	4
Originality	Many similar studies	Some innovation	Innovative Study	Unique Approach
Score 3:	1	2	3	4
Study Design	Unable to answer study	Partially addresses question	Good design, addresses question	Excellent design-answers questions and also addresses confounding variables
Score 4:	1	2	3	4
Statistical Analysis	None	Inappropriate or inaccurate	Descriptive statistics only	Full statistical analysis
Score 5:	1	2	3	4
Data Presentation	Raw data	Data summary	Comparative data present	Detailed analysis
Score 6:	1	2	3	4
Tables/Graphs	None	Confusing or inaccurate	Basic	Visually interesting and innovate
Score 7:	1	2	3	4
Conclusion Support	Unsupported or inaccurate	Incomplete data support	Some support	Supported
Score 8:	1	2	3	4
Discussion of Limitations	None	Incomplete	Complete
Score 9:	1	2	3
Impact	Poor	Supports current practice	Stimulates further work		Practice changing
Score 10:	1	2	3		4
References	Minimal	Limited	Comprehensive
Score 11:	1	2	3
Level of Evidence (LOE modifier)	RCT interventional study with adequate power, OR systematic review of Level 1 studies, OR prospective diagnostic study applied “gold standard”, OR economic study with appropriate sources and analyses, OR appropriately designed & executed basic science study.					1.3
	RCT of lower power (<80% follow up, no blinding, improperly randomized), OR prospective comparative data, OR retrospective study, OR systematic review of Level 2 studies, OR economic analysis based on limited data, OR appropriately designed basic science study but limited data.					1.2
	Case controlled study, retrospective comparative study, OR systematic review of Level 3 studies, OR economic analysis but poor estimates, OR adequately powered but slightly flawed basic science study, OR cohort study without “gold-standard”					1.1
	D. Case series without controls, OR poorly designed economic analysis, OR inadequately powered flawed basic science study					1
	E. Expert Opinion					1

Return to top

New Innovations in Emergency Medicine

The New Innovations in Emergency Medicine Poster Competition is scheduled annually during the Spring Seminar of the American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians (ACOEP). The competition is open to all emergency medicine professionals that are ACOEP members. This competition allows residents and faculty at current emergency medicine residencies to feature educational innovations they have created and use at their residency site. This may include: simulation, EM education, journal club, applicant evaluation, medical student education, etc.

Competition Format

Competition Requirements

All entries must be submitted on the designated form, found on the Foundation’s website or at the end of this document by January 31^st. Entries received after this date will not be accepted.

Abstracts must be submitted in a Microsoft word document, double spaced and text must be in 12-point times new roman font. Headlines for each section of the abstract should include BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVE, METHODS, RESULTS and CONCLUSION. The total length of the abstract should not exceed 500 words. The title, headers, authors and affiliations will not be included in the final word count. Below you will find more detail for what should be included in each section of the abstract.

TITLE: Should be less than 15 words and not include any abbreviations.

AFFILIATIONS: List all authors as you would like them to appear as if the abstract is being published in a journal.

BACKGROUND: Should contain two to three sentences outlining the importance of the project with attention to previous literature in the field. For instance, “Evidence based medicine and lifelong learning are essential to emergency medicine. The Fresno test of Evidence Based Medicine, is a validated tool used to assesses a learner’s knowledge of evidence-based medicine”.

OBJECTIVE: Should detail the primary endpoint of the innovation. For instance, “The primary objective of the study was to determine if teaching evidence-based medicine through a systematic approach at journal club increased learner’s scores on the Fresno test”.

METHODS: This section should include several sentences detailing how the authors performed their innovation at their residency site. For example, “Following IRB approval, a before and after study was completed over the course of the academic year 2018. The Fresno test was given to all residents at the beginning of the academic year during the first journal club. Subsequently, each journal club then specifically taught key elements that were tested on the Fresno test each month. At the end of the academic year, the Fresno test was again given to the residents for completion. One study author graded all tests. Descriptive statistics and the t-test were used to determine if any change was noted over time.

RESULTS: This section may vary based upon the type of innovation studied. However, it is recommended to include at least basic descriptive statistics in this section. For instance, “A total of 18 residents completed the Fresno test with 75% being male. Prior to intervention, overall mean performance on the Fresno test was 38% and following intervention was 77% (p<0.05).”

CONCLUSION: Should detail the overall findings of the innovation while being tied directly back into the objective. For instance, “Following directed evidence-based teaching, residents were found to statistically increase their scores on the Fresno test”.

Poster Format

New Innovations Poster Awards

Judging Criteria

Foundation for Osteopathic Emergency Medicine (FOEM): New Innovations Judging Criteria

The categories and criteria are listed below as the judging of each candidates attempts to address the concept/value, innovation/differentiation, social responsibility, and achievement/sustainability of each project submitted. Each candidate will receive a score in all categories, and the winners will be those with the highest overall scores. While scoring is defined here as 1, 3, or 5, judges will also be permitted to assign scores of 2 or 4 on the overall 1-5 scale.

Problem Definition: Does the candidate have a clear and deep understanding of the problem? Is there a clear pain-point their idea is addressing? Is the societal or market need clearly articulated? Do they understand the ecosystem that surrounds the problem?

5 = Clearly defined the problem and demonstrates a deep understanding of how the idea fills the need
3 = Clear on the problem, but not articulate on how the idea meets the need (or vice versa)
1 = Unclear or demonstrates a limited understanding of the problem

Market (Customer/User) Definition: Did the candidate talk to users and customers to validate assumptions? Is their user and customer well-defined? Does the candidate understand their user's need?

5 = Conducted excellent customer discovery, reaching out and listening to a range of potential parties in effective ways, learning from their experiences, and making significant adjustments when necessary.
3 = Conducted some customer discovery and has made some adjustments based on what they have learned.
1 = Not conducted significant (or effective) customer discovery.

Product Definition: Has the candidate clearly defined a product or solution? Is the value proposition clear? Does the product address a clear pain point and the needs of their defined user and customer?

5 = Clearly-defined solution that is well matched to customer needs.
3 = Clear solution, but is not clear on how it meets the need.
1 = Unclear product definition.

Innovation: Is their solution distinctive or fundamentally different from existing approaches? Could their solution viably be implemented and sustained in the real world? Would their solution inspire people to support it - and you?

5 = Breakthrough innovation that potentially changes how impact is achieved; generates enthusiasm and support.
3 = Moderately innovative; different but not game-changing.
1 = Interesting idea, but not fundamentally or distinctively innovative.

Sustainability: Has the candidate developed a plan for the sustainability of their innovation? (For this competition, sustainability means the ability to continually generate revenue to sustain the operations of the innovation/venture.)

5 = Displays a solid plan to make the project’s operations sustainable.
3 = Displays thought about how to make the project’s operations sustainable, but still has significant gaps in its plan.
1 = Does not have a viable plan for how to sustain the project’s operations.

Potential for social impact: Does the candidate clearly define a societal problem? Does their solution demonstrate the potential to change how impact is achieved? Does their solution make life better for their target population? How much potential exists for scaling their product’s social impact?

5 = Clearly defined the potential for exceptional impact.
3 = Demonstrates believable impact on a modest scale.
1 = Demonstrates unclear or limited impact.

Presentation and Other Strengths: Was the presentation professional and well-practiced? Is there anything else that the candidate has done exceptionally well?

5 = Demonstrates exceptional, participatory presentation skills that integrate all strengths and abilities. Project is professional in appearance, and is strong in its overall cohesion and related skills.
3 = Demonstrates moderate presentation and cohesion/related skills, but would benefit from further guidance and practice.
1 = Not comfortable or is ineffective in presentation skills and/or team cohesion and related skills.

Optional additional Grading Category:

Scalability/Growth Modification: Is the product capable of being scaled? Can it be duplicated with consistency, meet continuous standards, and be replicated in such a way that it can be produced and produced again without constantly being reinvented or adjusted?

Return to top

Site Links

Mobile Site