Meta Analysis/Systematic Review Poster Template Authors 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. 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. 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. 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: 0.288-0.780; 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 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 colony-stimulating 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 Library, the Journal of Pediatrics, and the British Medical Journal 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. 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. Charts/Graphs/Pictures Examples: Figure 1. Study selection diagram. Conclusion 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. 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. 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.