Transcript 48x36 Poster Template - Grand Rapids Medical Education

Title
Authors
Associated institutions
Introduction
Using the literature, establish any previous work
related to your proposed meta-analysis or systematic
review. This section should describe the gaping hole
in the literature and how your study will attempt to
address the gaping hole.
Study Objective(s)
Specify the objective(s) of your study
Methods
Search terms: list the key terms that will be used to
identify articles for review
Example: (recombinant granulocyte colonystimulating factor OR rG-CSF OR granulocyte),
(neonates OR preterm infant OR VLBW infants),
(sepsis OR septic shock OR septicemia) and design
terms included: placebo controlled, randomized
controlled trials, controlled clinical trial, clinical trial,
RCT and meta-analysis.
Data Sources: list all sources (e.g., databases,
journal articles, search engines) that will be accessed
for the literature search.
Example: PubMed, MEDLINE Plus, Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register
of Controlled Trials, ProQuest Research Librar, the
Journal of Pediatrics, the British Medical Journal and
the Journal of the American Medical Association
Study Selection Criteria: list specific criteria that will
be used in order to include/exclude articles.
Example: Articles were included if they were
published between January 1, 1990 – September 1,
2013, used recombinant granulocyte colony
stimulating factor (rG-CSF) (any dose) administered
to human neonates (<37 weeks gestation) with
septicemia (diagnosed or suspected), used a control
group (placebo or historical), reported all cause
mortality rates and described sufficient information to
calculate an effect size.
POSTER TEMPLATES BY:
www.POSTERPRESENTATIONS.com
Methods (Continued)
Study Variables: List all of the variables that will be
recorded from each article/source of information.
Example: Data collected included study type (e.g.,
randomized placebo controlled trial, historical
controls), patient demographics for both treatment
and control groups (e.g., weight, gestational age,
percent male), treatment type and number of deaths
Codebook/data collection tool: Describe the
methods to ensure data extraction consistency
among investigators.
Example: A codebook for the study variables was
created for the study. Data were recorded
individually by each investigator into an Excel
spreadsheet.
Procedures for checking the data: Describe
methods used for ensuring data validity, including
inter-rater reliability results and consensus
procedures used for disagreement.
Example: A Cohen’s kappa was calculated for overall
agreement between the data extracted by each
author. Disagreements were resolved through a
consensus-seeking procedure. This procedure
consisted of a third party making a determination on
the disagreement and discussion between the
authors and the third party until consensus was
achieved.
Analyses
[This section would not be needed for a
systematic review] Use this section to provide a
brief description of the software used for data
analysis, effect size estimate used for the study,
statistical methods and your criterion for significance
(e.g., p<0.05).
Example: Data were analyzed using Comprehensive
Meta-Analysis (Englewood, NJ). An odds ratio was
calculated for the overall effect size estimate. Both
random and fixed effects models were assessed, as
well as heterogeneity and publication bias.
Significance was assessed at p < 0.05.
Charts/Graphs/Figures (continued)
Results
Here’s where you provide some detail to all of the
cool tables and figures that you have provided.
Make sure the reader is very aware of what you
consider to be the major findings from your study.
This is also a place to remark upon some of the
minor findings that did not make their way into any of
your tables and figures.
Hint: Don’t just regurgitate the same information
already present in your tables and figures. Pick out
specific pieces of information on which you would
like your reader to focus.
FigureFigure
2. Forest
plot
of main
2. Forest plot
of main
effects effects.
Sample
size
Odds
ratio
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
pvalue
Gathwala et al. (2012)
40
0.328
0.071
1.518
0.154
Chaudhuri et al. (2012)
78
0.204
0.060
0.694
0.011
Miura et al. (2000)
44
0.784
0.199
3.084
0.726
Bedford Russell et al. (2001)
28
0.229
0.022
2.377
0.217
El-Ganzoury et al. (2012)
60
0.727
0.240
2.206
0.574
Schibler et al. (1998)
20
0.583
0.075
4.562
0.608
Barak et al. (1997)
38
0.278
0.050
1.536
0.142
Kocherlakota et al. (1997)
25
0.064
0.006
0.675
0.022
Ahmad et al. (2002)
18
7.933
0.350
179.955
0.193
Drossou-Agakidou et al. (1998)
39
1.511
0.290
7.869
0.624
Khan et al. (2012)
30
0.500
0.095
2.628
0.413
Kucukoduk et al. (2002)
40
0.474
0.039
5.688
0.556
0.474
0.474
0.288
0.294
0.780
0.765
0.003
0.002
Publication (year)
Random effect model
Fixed effect model
- 0.001$
Example: A total of 12 studies were included in the
analysis (Figure 1). There were 226 neonates
included in the treatment group and 234 in the
control group. The results for the random effects
model are shown in Figure 2. The overall random
effect summary was OR=0.474; 95% CI: 0.2880.780; p=0.003. In other words, neonates in the
treatment group were 2.1 times more likely to survive
than neonates in the control group. Individually, a
significant outcome was only seen in two of the 12
studies.
Charts/Graphs/Pictures
Figure 1. Study selection diagram
Examples:
Figure 1. Study selection diagram.
18 studies were identified through
an initial search of databases and
journals
18 studies reviewed
6 studies excluded
- 1 no mortality reported
- 1 neonates with sepsis were
excluded
- 1 animal study
- 1 not a primary study
- 1 all neonates received rG-CSF
- 1 used different form (rGM-CSF
of treatment
12 studies met the
inclusion criteria
0.01$
0.01
0.1$
0.1
Favors
treatment
1$
1
10$
10
100$
100
1000$
Favors
control
Don’t Be Constrained by These Headings
Every study is different, so don’t feel like you have
to mash your round pegs to fit into the template’s
square holes. Add sections and headings as are
dictated by your study.
Discussion
The discussion section is used to summarize the
main findings from your study and to interpret your
results relative to current findings in the literature.
Conclusions
The big finish, where you get to blow your audience
away with your final, pithy comments. This should
be
brief, three sentences tops. If you’re at a loss for
words, you can either do a combined
Discussion/Conclusions section or just do a
conclusions section that reiterates the importance of
your
study.
References
While it is a nice thing to include references, if you’re
crunched for space, these are the first things to go. If
the choice is between including a really good looking
graph or the references, ditch the references and
show the graph.