The abstract structure should include:

Title

The title should accurately reflect the content of the abstract (objective, study design) and be around 10-12 words long. Do not include acronyms.

Authors

The list of authors should be restricted to individuals who worked on the study, conceived it, designed it, obtained the data, analyzed the figures, and wrote the abstract.

The author presenting the abstract should, as a rule, be the first author of the paper.

All authors should read and approve the abstract before it is submitted.

Abstract Body

A good abstract should address the following five questions in the relevant sections:

1. “Why did you start?” – Introduction.
   It should summarize, preferably in one sentence, the current knowledge or state of the art specifically related to the work you are presenting.
2. “What did you try to do?” – Objectives.
   Here you should define the objective of the study and ideally include a short statement of the hypothesis to be tested.
3. “What did you do?” – Methods.
   In an abstract, the description of the methods should be concise and most details should be omitted. However, in a short sentence, you should give the reader a precise idea of the study design, the context in which it was conducted, and the type of patients or measurements that were included. Describe the type of study (retrospective, prospective, randomized, etc.).
4. “What were your findings?” – Results.
   It is important to mention the main results of the study, not from a subjective point of view (“we found that equipment X was superior to equipment Y”) but in the form of actual data. Choices should be made regarding the data selected to present in the abstract and on which the conclusions will be based.
5. “What is the significance of this study?” – Conclusions.
   Conclusions should be succinct (max. one sentence), relevant, based on the results, and limited to the specific context of the study.

The submission of a clinical case is justified by the rarity of the condition, the contribution to knowledge of a particular clinical situation, the suggestion of diagnostic strategies, or the demonstration of more innovative therapeutic approaches.

Cases that show atypical presentations of common diseases or rare complications may also be relevant.

Cases that address aspects that are already widely known should not be submitted, except when they present significant particularities.

The case should be described clearly and objectively, respecting the established format:

• Title and authorship:
  The title should be brief, descriptive, and attractive, serving as a summary of the abstract, highlighting the importance, relevance, and potential innovation of the topic, but without revealing all the details in order to maintain the reader's interest.
  After the title, the names of the authors and their institutions should be listed. The authors should have made a significant contribution to the content of the case. The author who submits the abstract should, as a rule, be the first author of the work.
• Introduction:
  It should concisely present the context of the case, highlighting its relevance and importance.
• Case description:
  It should follow the classic sequence of medical communication: clinical history, physical examination, complementary tests, and patient progress. The description should be clear, objective, and complete, avoiding irrelevant details.
• Conclusions:
  These should contain a reflection on the strategies adopted and the main message drawn from the case. Data from the literature that support or question the findings may be cited.

• The first author will be the contact author;
• The author who will present the paper must be indicated, and they must meet the eligibility criteria for presentation;
• The abstract complies with the required submission rules;
• Use simple sentences.
• Unless they are basic and universally accepted (e.g., ARDS, FEV1), acronyms and abbreviations should be spelled out in full the first time they are used in the abstract. Similarly, local expressions or jargon should be avoided.
• The abstract has been reviewed by all authors for content, style, and grammar.