1. Sample Journal Club
Your Name Here

2. Paper
Catheters into Clots for Strokes, Authors et al, 2015 Type of paper: Treatment Trial (or diagnostic test trial, meta-analysis, etc)

3. Author’s Hypotheses
At the study conclusion, what did the authors hope to prove
Statement of purpose for the study: Within patients with some disease, is this treatment superior to something else in regards to an outcome we care about.

4. Background Why has this question remained unsettled or controversial
Keep it brief, 1-2 slides
Does not have to be exhaustive, just summarize major developments

5. Patients
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria

6. Discussion
Are these criteria reasonable in reference to the underlying hypothesis?

7. Study design Randomized? Placebo controlled Blinded Parallel arm
Cross-over
Change from baseline
Mean differences between arms
Meta-analysis
Etc.

8. Discussion Slide
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen design for answering the hypothesis?
Would you choose anything different?

9. Intervention What is the intervention? What is the comparator?
Any additional considerations for blinding?

10. Preplanned Outcomes
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary

11. Discussion
Are these outcomes relevant and clinically significant?

12. Were Patients Similar at the Start of the Trial:
Patients were randomized: Yes/No
Analysis according to randomization: Yes/No
Treatment groups similar: Yes/No
Table 1 Reasonable?

13. Did patients stay similar throughout the trial?
Participants were blinded to group allocation: Yes/No
Clinicians were blinded to group allocation: Yes/No
Outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation: Yes/No
Follow-up was/was not complete: Yes/No
CONSORT Diagram

14. Analyses What statistical methods were used?
How did the authors determine power and sample size?
Intention to treat
Were discontinuations followed until study end

15. Discussion Are these analyses appropriate for the hypothesis
What are the alternative ways to analyze
Was the trial powered to be definitive

16. Results: How large and precise were the treatment effects:
Present confidence intervals
RRR/ARR/NNT:
Primary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes
Other Outcomes
Were the outcomes kept consistent with a priori hypotheses

17. Adverse Events

18. Discussion: Clinical Relevance for Us
The patients were similar to our patients: Yes/No
Outcome was clinically relevant: Yes/No
Benefits of the trial are worth the harms/costs: Yes/No

19. Subset Analyses
Results
What are the take away points?

20. What did the author’s conclude

21. Recapitulate the hypotheses
Did the authors answer their hypothesis

22. What do you conclude?
Endovascular therapies + tPA are good

23. Summarize and Discuss Limitations
Consider presenting in PICO format (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcome)

24. Discussion Other thoughts on how to apply or study further
Would you accept the manuscript if reviewing?