Abstract vs introduction on a research poster

Two blocks with different readers in mind

Think about the two people who walk past a board. The first gives it a few seconds and wants to know whether the study is relevant: that person reads the abstract, if they read anything. The second has stopped and is working through the columns: that person reads the introduction to understand why the question was worth asking. The ICMJE recommendations for journal articles draw the same line. The abstract should give the context, the purpose, the basic procedures, the main findings with specific effect sizes, and the principal conclusions, while the introduction should give the nature of the problem and its significance, state the objective or hypothesis, and not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.

Should a poster have an abstract at all

Opinion is split, and the split is useful. Colin Purrington's widely used poster design guide argues against an abstract on the board, on the grounds that a poster is already an abstract of the research and a second summary wastes space. The counter argument is that many visitors never read beyond the top of the first column, and a four sentence abstract serves them. A reasonable rule: if the call for abstracts or the organisers ask for one on the board, include it; if the poster leads with a large key finding, the abstract is often redundant; and if neither applies, a short abstract rarely hurts a text heavy board but does hurt a crowded one.

Writing each one so they do not overlap

Write the abstract last, after the results and conclusion are settled, and give it one sentence each for aim, method, result and meaning, with the main number and its interval in the result sentence. Then write the introduction as a short argument: the problem in one or two sentences, one or two facts about its size or cost with a citation, what earlier work has not settled, and the aim. Read them side by side. Any sentence that appears in both, or that would fit equally well in either, should be cut from one. The introduction should never mention the study's own result.

Where IMRaD puts them

Most boards follow the order of a journal article: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion and references. A survey of four major medical journals published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association found this introduction, methods, results and discussion structure became the majority format for original papers in the 1970s and the only format by the 1980s. On a poster the abstract sits above or at the start of that sequence, and the introduction is the first block of the argument itself. Question led and billboard style boards break the order on purpose, putting the question or the finding where the abstract would go.

Common mistakes

Pasting the submitted conference abstract onto the board and then writing an introduction that restates its first two sentences is the most common. Others are an abstract without a single number, which tells a passer by nothing, and an introduction that runs to a literature review with eight citations, crowding out the results. A subtler error is an abstract that still says will be analysed or results pending from submission time; update it to the finished study, or remove it, before printing.

Where it shows up in the poster builder

Most of the forty poster layouts start with both blocks. In the templates' default copy, 32 layouts carry a section headed Abstract, and eight do not: Before and After, Billboard Key Finding, Icon Key Points, Question Led, Wide Billboard, Wide Comparison Board, Wide Icon Key Points and Wide Question Led. Those eight lead with a finding, a question or a comparison instead. Every board has at least one section block, and headings are editable text, so an abstract section can be renamed Background or deleted to give the introduction more room. The criminology example shows a classic board with an abstract and background at the top of the first column.

Questions people ask