Title of the Abstract/Project

Names and Affiliations of AuthorsVenueDate

Background and Rationale for the Study/Project

• Identify the clinical problem the project addresses

• Provide a very brief summary of the background literature

• Include a study hypothesis on this slide, or on a separate slide

The literature review should be referenced – can be as simple as a “name, year” with a separate slide at the end

Methods

• Identify the study setting • IRB/ethics approvals/informed consent• Characteristics of participants– Inclusionary criteria– Exclusionary criteria

• Bold, italics, and color can highlight important features of your data

• Avoid writing sentences – you will be tempted to read your slides

Methods

• Interventional Procedures– A table or figure of the

design, group assignments, tests, etc. can save space and looks good

• Study Outcomes/Tests• Data Analysis

– Statistics, post-hoc tests, p-value

– If space is tight, include on a separate page

Be careful

Fonts too

small…

Not to make

Include references for outcome measures, so the audience can look up the metrics

Results

• Provide a list of the study findings– What was completed– Demographic findings/baseline characteristics– Keep results focused on the findings – leave

interpretation to the discussion– Any font less than 20-point is difficult to read in a presentation

Use 2 or fewer figures per slide to show your results – anything more can be too busy or small, and detract

from your message

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 40

1

2

3

4

5

6

Series 1Series 2Series 3

Results, cont  Scoring 

Weight (%)Needs Improvement:

0-1 pointsAcceptable:2-3 points

Outstanding:4-5 points

Introduction and Significance of the Problem

15 Research has limited significance or clinical need is poorly described.

Research has clinical appeal, but need or goals are not well addressed.

Research has a broad appeal, and need and goals are well described.

Approach and Methodology

25 No hypothesis stated. Methods do not appear appropriate to address the research question, poorly described, and hard to follow.

Hypothesis stated; use of descriptive design. Methods are appropriate for the research question, but would be hard to reproduce from the description given.

Hypothesis driven; use of experimental design. Methods are very appropriate, and implementation is well-described. Could be easily reproduced.

Results /Findings

10 Results are incomplete, poorly described, or do not answer research question.

Results complete, but do not completely address the research question.

Results complete and tied directly to the research question.

Discussion:-Limitations-Clinical Implications-Impact

20 No or minimal limitations, implications, recommendations presented. Limited apparent impact on the profession

Adequate conclusions and descriptions of the clinical implications; does not fully address limitations, concrete suggestions for future study presented.

Excellent summarization of the limitations and clinical impact is discussed and/or detailed suggestions for future study are offered.

Presentation Style

15 Does not face audience, poor eye contact, reads slides. Unable to address basic questions about the project.

Occasional lapses with speech, pacing, or eye contact; has difficulty with more in-depth questions.

Clear inflection and pronunciation, good eye contact, effective at handling more in-depth questions.

Format: Style, Clarity, Grammar, and use of images, figures, and tables

10 Difficult to read the font, spelling or grammar errors common. Ineffective use of images, figures, etc.

Minimal spelling and grammar errors (2 or fewer), good use of images, figures, etc. Able to read most font, tables and graph axes on slides.

No spelling or grammar errors. Excellent use of images, figures, etc. to illustrate or feature key points. Able to read font, tables and graph axes on slides.

References

5 No references.

Minimal References, or not well selected.

Key references are provided to support the project.

TOTAL SCORE 100

This table is too busy and the audience will not be able to read it

Discussion

• Summarize what the results mean and how they answered the study objective (s)

• Include a tie-in to the clinical impact of the findings

• Do not use red font with a black or blue background – difficult on the audience’s eyes

Discussion

• Address any new questions the study brought to light

• Incorporate limitations of the project

Conclusions

• Main findings of the project• Give a take home message• Offer suggestions for future study

Acknowledgements and/or References

• A general rule of thumb is allow an average of 1 minute per slide

• This takes into account an average of – quick slides, such as the

title slide, – as well as longer slides

(e.g method or result descriptions), which could take 2-3 minutes each.