For those of you who've ever wondered about statistics.  Read carefully, hope you enjoy.

  Beth T. the OT 
  Subject: 




  I came across this example of how to submit an abstract to the Community Dentistry Conference in Finland.  Thought you all would enjoy it about now, it explains my difficulty in filling out forms and splotchy ink pens.....

  But isn't it a FINE example of how to write an abstract.....and it gives a good idea for someone's special project too....a follow up study.




  Guide for Abstract Submission 
    
  Read This Next Section Very Carefully 
  The abstract must be typed properly. Otherwise it cannot be submitted to Community Dental Health for publication. The abstracts should be structured abstracts, meaning that the headings: Objective, Methods, Results and Conclusion/s should be found in the abstract. The scientific committee cannot accept abstracts that are unsuitable for publication, so incorrectly completed abstract forms will be rejected. Of course, content is also a factor; a beautifully presented abstract reporting trivial results will not be accepted. 

  Sample Abstract 
    
    A study of incompetence in completion of Irish IADR abstracts. F BURKE, W COULTER, B MCCARTAN*. Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, School of Clinical Dentistry, Queens' University of Belfast and School of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin. 

  OBJECTIVE This study was designed to expose the inability of dentists, many of whom have completed college education, to follow simple instructions in filling up a form. BACKGROUND Previous research has shown that while dentists are excellent in completing forms necessary for the payment of money by health care funding sources, both public and private (Burke FM, Coulter W, McCartan BE. Int J Dent Trivia 1994;23:34-7.) they are useless where payment is not the object of the form (Coulter W, McCartan BE, Burke FM. J Dent Ephemera 1995;3:1024-58). METHODS All abstracts submitted for the Irish IADR 1956 meeting were examined and scored as correct (+), very correct (++), politically correct (+++), horribly correct (++++) or incorrect (-) on each of five criteria: spelling, grammar, absence of results, smudges from leaky ball point pens and dubious statistics. Statistical analysis was carried out using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov 70° proof test. Examiners were specially calibrated and extensively trained in the Smirnov section of the test. Three persons scored each abstract. Scorers were blinded (mostly by alcohol, but partly by age and sex). 78.12741% (p<0.00037587) of abstracts had dubious results and/or statistical analysis. RESULTS Speling was found to be eczelent thruout; 70% of all words was spelld corectly. Grammar was alrite except for a tendency to gratuitously split infinitives. 83.56476% of abstracts had leaky ball point smudges but examiner contamination could not be entirely excluded as several smudges appeared to have been enlarged following dilution with ethanol. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that, viewed through the bottom of a bottle, everything in the garden is rosy, but further extensive multi-centre studies may be necessary. This study was partly funded by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov Foundation