November 6th, 2012

Late-Breaking Trials vs. Abstract Oral Sessions

Several Cardiology Fellows who are attending AHA.12 in LA this week are blogging together for CardioExchange. The Fellows include Tariq AhmadReva Balakrishnan, Megan Coylewright, Eiman Jahangir, Amit Shah, and John Ryan (moderator). Read the previous post here. Find the next one here. For related CardioExchange content, go to our AHA 2012 Headquarters page.

Over the last 48 hours, I, like most others, have attended a mix of educational and abstract presentations and browsed both the poster and exhibition halls. One area I have not spent time in is the Late Breaking Trials. While it may seem that these would be the most exciting and the most sought-after sessions, for me, they make the least valuable use of my time. The beauty of the Late Breaking Trials is that as soon as the embargoes are lifted on the outcomes, the information is quickly disseminated over the Internet through various blogs, journal sites, and Twitter feeds. Therefore, even without attending, I am quickly able to learn what has been announced. While I may be missing the excitement and energy, I am not missing the data.

On the other hand, the abstract oral sessions are the most valuable to me. These not only provide new and interesting research in its beginning stages, they also provide data that is not as quickly or widely disseminated online. Additionally, it is in these smaller sessions that I am able to see my friends, such as former co-residents and co-fellows, present the work that in some cases has taken many years to complete. Therefore, attending these sessions is always more exciting to me as I am able to see my colleagues honored for the effort that they have placed in their research while training.

Which sessions do you find most valuable?

One Response to “Late-Breaking Trials vs. Abstract Oral Sessions”

  1. Steven Greer, MD says: