1. Lecture №13 POWERPOINT PRESENTATION SKILLS FOR SCIENTISTS

2. Keys to a Successful Presentation  Know your Audience  Make it Clear!  The Heart of the Matter: Sharp Figures & Pretty Pictures  Prepare & Practice  Zzzzzz …  How You Say it Matters  Not Compatible?  Closure

3. Know Your Audience In your field - can jump in with brief background; non-experts - need more set-up Purpose of your talk (Convince? Update? Teach?) Communicate with your audience * size matters * formal vs. discussion format Convey your enthusiasm about your work Don’t talk over their heads; don’t talk down to them

4. Make it Clear - Structure OUTLINE FIRST!!  Controls number of slides & provides balance - Budget 2-3 minutes/slide (e.g. 30’ talk = 10-15 slides)  Have one story to tell: - decide on underlying issue to be addressed - divide into logical, heirarchical subquestions - talk should be series of answers to these questions  Zoom-In (intro) and Zoom-Out (closure)

5. Make it Clear - Concept Style & format - use color to highlight & organize - be consistent (audience knows where to look) Read through presentation and see if main points stand-out - Heading = WHAT or HOW - Summary statement = CONCLUSION “Speaker Support” - It doesn’t carry you -- you are the focus - It supports your message

6. Make it Clear - Don’t Lose ‘em Frustrate your audience & you lose them!  Science talk vs. murder mystery -- don’t keep you’re audience hanging!  Know the fuzzy borders between experimental evidence and speculation (affects how you formulate your sentences)  One concept per slide - cluster examples rather than moving through series too quickly  Make sure you can be heard!

7. The Heart of the Matter: Sharp Figures & Pretty Pictures Clear title Highlight particular areas/words Don’t crowd with too much info Give credit where credit due - reference published data; borrowed figures

8. The Heart of the Matter: Sharp Figures & Pretty Pictures Show bad showing a lot of unreadable info “for effect” - bad! if it can’t be read -- it’s a waste & it annoys audience

9. The Heart of the Matter: Sharp Figures & Pretty Pictures Show bad

10. The Heart of the Matter: Sharp Figures & Pretty Pictures GOOD (some showmanship here)

11. The Heart of the Matter: Sharp Figures & Pretty Pictures GOOD Use one of Jen’s figure slides color-coded parts, etc.

12. Prepare & Practice  Timing (how many slides & length of talk)  Memorize intro and first few lines  Beware of overpracticing * Don’t memorize entire talk -- stiff & BORING!! * 1X = 10-fold improvement * 2X = twice as good * 3X = polish

13. Zzzzzz … Talk to your audience (eye contact, conversational style) Engage your audience by asking questions Keep it interesting: - share interesting tidbits - give unique examples/analogies - humor disturbs slumber Tiny type kills (use at least 18 point font... ?) If you’re bored, you’re audience is snoring!

14. How You Say it Matters VERBAL SKILLS Slow down! Don’t read your slides - use as cues Vary voice tone (conversational) Genuine enthusiasm SPEAK-UP BODY LANGUAGE Eye contact Stand straight - breathe Don’t overgesture with pointer, etc. Face your audience

15. Not Compatible?  Ask ahead of time what equipment provided : - overhead projector vs. Powerpoint  What format used: - PC vs. Mac?  What type of disk acceptable: - floppy vs. Zip 100, Zip 250?  Emergency back-ups: - overheads - handouts

16. Closure Summary of conclusions Zoom-out (relevance or application of your work) Next steps (if appropriate) Acknowledgements

17. Scientific Talks - Summary 1. Know your audience & their needs 2. Tell them a clear story developing each point upon the previous 3. Show them the evidence (sharp figures) 4. Keep them awake by engaging them 5. Give them great delivery -- prepare, practice & SPEAK-UP! 6. Share your enthusiasm for your work 7. Sell your message with a strong summary of conclusions Most importantly - Have Fun!

18. PART II TYPES OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

19. Part II Objectives Learn the common study types Be able to extract the research question Be able to identify an article’s study type Be able to determine the conclusions

20. Outline For This Section Focus on 4 study designs o Case-control o Cohort o Randomized Control Trial o Review Narrative Systematic Meta Analysis

21. “3 questions to get your bearings”“3 questions to get your bearings” * 1.What was the research question? 2.What was the research design? 3.Was the research design appropriate to the question? Will try to find answers to 1 and 2 in excerpts of 4 articles (A-D) provided * - Greenhalgh, T. (2006). How to read a paper: the basis of evidence-based medicine. Malden, MA: Blackwell

22. Study Designs Primary Literature o Observational Case-Control Cohort o Experimental Randomized Control Trial Secondary Literature o Narrative (Subject/Journalistic) Reviews o Systematic Review o Meta Analysis

23. Case-Control Patients with a disease or exposure --compared to-- Similar group without disease or exposure Best uses o Rare conditions o Diseases or conditions that may take a long time to develop

24. Background: DES Used in the United States from 1947 until 1971 Boston area doctors noted an unusual cancer Study compared the group with the cancer to similar people without the cancer The major difference between the cases and the controls was DES exposure

25. Example: DES and Cancer Herbst, A.L., Ulfelder, H., & Poskanzer,D.C. (1971). Adenocarcinoma of the vagina: association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. NEJM, 284(16), 478-481. Look at article: –Last sentence in Introductory area = research question –First paragraph in methods = research design

26. Why did the authors match cases and controls by the type of service mothers received?* * -see page 879 1.To reduce socioeconomic differences 2.To examine whether the cancer was related to infectious disease exposures 3.To decide if chemical disinfectants used to clean wards caused cancer 4.All of the above

27. How many of the 8 cases’ mothers were given estrogen in pregnancy (DES)? 1.All 2.Seven 3.Five 4.Three 5.One 6.None 30

28. Cohort Two groups compared over time One group with “exposure”, the other without the “exposure” Best used: o when exposures can’t be controlled o when outcomes occur infrequently o when RCT is not ethical

29. Example: Smoking vs. Non-Smoking British Physicians Doll, R., Peto, R., Boreham, J., & Sutherland, I. (2004). Mortality in Relation to Smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE 50 years (and counting) Cohort Study of British doctors Most recent of a series of reports Compared health outcomes of smokers vs. health outcomes of non-smokers Research question = Research design =

30. When was there enough evidence from this study to show the link between smoking and lung cancer? 1.1954 2.1966 3.1978 4.1991

31. Randomized Control Trial A treatment group is compared to a control group Group members are assigned randomly Best uses: –Drug therapies –Medical treatments

32. Example: Smoking cessation intervention An, L.C., Klatt, C., Perry, C.L., Lein, E.B., Hennrikus, D.J., et al. (2008). The RealU online cessation intervention for college smokers: a randomized control trial. Preventive Medicine, 47(2)194-199. Look at the article: o The last paragraph of the introduction - research question o The last paragraph of the introduction - research design o Study flow chart - pg. 196

33. 25,000 UM students were recruited by email How many UM students ended up in the intervention group? 1. 24,007 2. 2,407 3. 257 4. 107 5. 7

34. What percent of RealU participants had 30 days of no smoking at week 30? 1.100% 2.80% 3.60% 4.40% 5.20% 6.none 30

35. Narrative (Journalistic/Subject) Reviews The “traditional” or “classic” review “Review” limit in Ovid/PubMed includes: –Narrative reviews –Systematic reviews Authors choose articles included Author bias is a concern – research verifies this effect

36. Systematic Review Reproducible methods to find and select articles are included Should include both inclusion and exclusion criteria Why? Decrease author bias

37. Example: Is HPV Vaccine Cost-Effective? Techakehakij, W., Feldman, R.D. (2008). Cost- effectiveness of HPV vaccination compared to Pap smear screening on a national scale: a literature review. Vaccine, doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.09.036 Look at article: –Pg. 2, Section 3.1, first paragraph = research question –Pg. 3, Section 4.1, first to third paragraphs = research design

38. It is recommended that HPV vaccine be given as a 3 shot series. How much do 3 doses of vaccine cost? 1.$500-$1000 2.$300-$500 3.$200-$300 4.$100-$200 30

39. Meta Analysis Similar to Systematic Review except… Numeric data from separate studies combined in meta analysis Uses statistical/mathematical methods to combine numerical data from studies Combining data increases the confidence we have in the conclusions reached by a meta analysis

40. GROUP WORK

41. Group Work Groups of 3 Everyone in group gets same article (#1, 2, 3, OR 4) Spend 10 min. working together on questions Class discussion

42. Article Type What kind of question is it good for? StrengthsWeaknesses Identifying Characteristics Case-Control (Herbst, 1971) (Peled, 2008) -Rare disorders or conditions -Slow developing disorders -Causation* -Short time frame to examine correlations between disorder and other factors -Susceptible to bias -Limited validity -Cross sectional Cohort** (Doll, et al, 2004) (Metcalf, 2008) - Prognosis -Causation* - Feasible when studying conditions or exposures over which the investigator has no control -Susceptible to bias -Limited validity -May require large groups, long durations, great cost -Longitudinal -Usually prospective -Can be retrospective (less cost) Randomized Control Trial (RCT) (An et al, 2008) (Gordon, 1997) -Drug treatment -Medical interventions -Strong level of evidence -Low susceptibility to bias -Feasibility (e.g. Ethical limitations) -Generalizability** -Randomization method - Experimental and control groups Systematic Review (Techakehakij,2008) (Gallicchio, 2008) -Drug treatment -Medical interventions -Low susceptibility to bias -Strongest level of evidence -Many topics have no systematic review -Methods section has explicit information about information sources, how articles were chosen or excluded * - used loosely here; not distinguishing between correlation and causation (in medicine etiology is used for the cause of a disease or condition) ** - can results of an RCT be applied to groups that do not match the study group?

43. The Evidence Pyramid Used for Evidence-Based Medicine

44. Thanks for your attention We will post these slides on the Student Portal on the Norris Medical Library website Student Portal Contact us with questions –Joe Pozdol – pozdol@usc.edupozdol@usc.edu –Evans Whitaker – ewhitake@usc.eduewhitake@usc.edu Please complete evaluations!