Title (20 words) — State what was studied and in whom. No abbreviations. Avoid questions, puns, and the phrase “a study of”.

Background (50 words) — The specific gap in knowledge and the aim of your study. State the aim as a single explicit sentence beginning “We aimed to…”. This is the sentence most missing abstracts lack.

Methods (70 words) — Study design (name it: cross-sectional, cohort, randomised trial, diagnostic accuracy study, etc.), setting, recruitment dates, eligibility criteria, sample size, what was measured and how it was defined, and the main statistical approach. Do not describe laboratory technique in detail. State ethics committee approval.

Results (145 words) — The number analysed, participant characteristics in one sentence, then the actual findings as numbers. Every key result needs a denominator and a measure of precision — a percentage with its confidence interval, an odds ratio with its CI, a mean with its SD. Report the direction and size of the effect, not only whether it was significant.

Conclusion (35 words) — What your results mean, limited to what your data support. One sentence on the implication for practice or research is welcome. Do not write “further studies are needed” and stop there.

Non-negotiable rules

• Only original work. Abstracts previously presented at a previous Allergocon will not be accepted.
• Results must contain real numbers. “Most patients improved significantly” is not a result. This is the commonest reason abstracts are marked down.
• No abbreviations in the title. Define every abbreviation at first use.
• No references in the abstract.
• One image maximum, JPEG or PNG, under 500 kb. Results are usually clearer in narrative form — upload an image only if it genuinely adds something.
• If you reproduce a previously published figure or table, you must hold written permission from the copyright holder and include a credit line.
• Check the author list and author order before you submit. It cannot be changed after acceptance.

---

SAMPLE ABSTRACT — ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The data below are entirely fictitious and are provided only to illustrate structure, level of detail, and use of numbers. Do not cite or reuse any of it.

Category: Original research

Title: Penicillin allergy labels and outcomes of direct oral challenge in a tertiary hospital (13 words)

Authors: A. B. Kumar (presenting), C. D. Rajan, E. F. Thomas Affiliation: Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Sample Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Background Penicillin allergy labels are common and lead to use of broader-spectrum alternatives, yet over 90% of labelled patients are not truly allergic. Data from Indian hospitals are scarce. We aimed to determine the prevalence of penicillin allergy labels among inpatients and the safety of direct oral amoxicillin challenge in low-risk patients. (49 words)

Methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study with a nested challenge protocol in a 2,700-bed teaching hospital between March 2024 and February 2025. Adults admitted to medical wards were screened for a documented penicillin allergy label. Labelled patients were risk-stratified using PEN-FAST. Those scoring below 3 were offered single-dose oral amoxicillin 250 mg with two hours’ observation. Ethics approval and written consent were obtained. (64 words)

Results Of 4,182 patients screened, 291 (7.0%; 95% CI 6.2–7.8) carried a penicillin allergy label. The label was based on a documented reaction description in only 84 of 291 (28.9%). Of 291 labelled patients, 176 (60.5%) scored below 3 on PEN-FAST and 148 consented to challenge. Two of 148 (1.4%; 95% CI 0.2–4.8) developed a reaction, both mild urticaria managed with oral antihistamines; none required adrenaline. Among the 146 successfully delabelled, appropriate beta-lactam use rose from 21.9% to 78.1% during the same admission (p<0.001). (85 words)

Conclusion Penicillin allergy labels were carried by one in fourteen medical inpatients and were rarely substantiated. Direct oral challenge in low-risk patients was safe and substantially improved beta-lactam prescribing. Delabelling can feasibly be embedded within routine inpatient care. (37 words)