Background & Aim: One of the most important ways of scientific promotion of congresses is to evaluate abstract of articles and getting feedback from them. This study aimed to evaluate abstract of articles presented in the nursing and midwifery congresses during 2010-2015 from different aspects.

Methods: This is a descriptive/cross-sectional study which conducted on all abstracts presented in Nursing and Midwifery Congresses during 2010-2015. Data were studied through two tools including a standard tool of structural evaluation of abstracts for clinical trials, case study and review studies and also a checklist for conformity of abstracts with announced axis of each congress.

Results: Among 812 abstracts examined in the study, 87% of them were clinical trials and the rest were case study and review articles. 98% of the abstracts of congresses held in the last two years were consistent with the guidelines. In 79 percent of the case study abstracts, the time of the study was unclear and in 82% of clinical trials, the number of missing samples was not mentioned. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further researches were not mentioned in 98% of the abstracts.

Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that although structure of abstracts in Nursing and Midwifery congresses in recent years is closed to the standard structure, there is still lot of problems regarding the scientific writing of abstracts which required further attention of authorities of Nursing and Midwifery Congresses to the standard and international structure of scientific writing of abstracts.