Reviewers are asked to assess each Instructional Course submission carefully, objectively and consistently, taking into account the scientific value, educational relevance and compliance requirements outlined below.

1. Assess whether the proposed course topic is relevant, timely and of clear interest to the congress audience.
2. Consider whether the course content is sufficiently distinct from other submissions. Make a note in case repetition of same topics occurs.
3. Review whether the level of the course is clearly indicated and appropriate, for example basic, intermediate or advanced.
4. Evaluate whether the course abstract is complete, informative and sufficiently detailed. Very short or one-line submissions should be considered less favourably.
5. Check that the course title and presentation titles are concise, scientific and do not include any company or product names.
6. Ensure that the submission complies with UEMS accreditation requirements. Submissions including company or product names in the title or programme should not be recommended for acceptance.
7. Take into account whether declarations of interest have been provided for all faculty members, particularly where there may be a financial interest in the subject matter.
8. Consider the composition of the faculty, including the number of faculty members, international representation, gender balance and the added educational value of each speaker. Make a note in case the same faculty, in the same or another order, has submitted courses.
9. Courses with international faculty from different clinically active countries, a balanced faculty composition and a clear educational structure may be viewed more favourably.
10. Courses focused on a single product, company or commercial approach should be viewed less favourably.
11. Where a course has been held previously, consider the previous number of participants, timing within the congress programme and evaluation scores.
12. Novel courses or courses addressing an identified educational need may stand a higher chance of acceptance.
13. Prerequisite courses linked to surgical skills labs may be considered more favourably where they add clear value to the congress scientific and educational programme.
14. Submissions made on behalf of uninvited European, national or international societies should not automatically be given priority unless they provide clear additional scientific or educational value.
15. Reviewers should provide fair, constructive and concise comments where appropriate, especially if recommending rejection or identifying compliance concerns.