Discipline:
Medicine and Health
Type of service:
Article Review
Spacing:
Double spacing
Paper format:
APA
Number of pages:
18 pages
Number of sources:
10 sources
Paper detalis:
REVISION
I have attached everything the author needs to make this paper a success, including but not limited to, syllabus and grading criteria. It is imperative the writer follows each specific instruction since the school is very picky and can denied the paper for any reason that was mandated but not followed in the paper. The form attached RLRA 2, is my hypothesis proposal along with 10 article references. If the author wishes, he/she can also add sources that he/she deemed relevant provided they follow the criteria set forth by the school regarding sources, the article review must compare minimum 10 articles.
The writer has to compare and contrast the articles’ methods, results, and discussions. When in doubt refer to the syllabus and “guide to authors” forms uploaded. I prefer the writer takes it’s time if the instructions are followed to perfection. Any questions please dont hesitate to reach out. Thank You
5 attachments
Slide 1 of 5
attachment_1
attachment_1
attachment_2
attachment_2
attachment_3
attachment_3
attachment_4
attachment_4
attachment_5
attachment_5
UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Revision Instructions One of the primary sources “Leadbetter et al” was not cited, i dont know if it was not included in the paper or the author forgot to cite it. The results states there were 5 articles compared but Leadbetter is missing. Page 2= Under Conclusion -“can serve as a superior alternative to traditional autopsies for a while a post-in a neonate or fetus”, if you can change “for a while” and don’t understand what is meant by a “post-in a neonate or fetus”, if you can please word it differently. Page 3= Introduction , first paragraph -Starting from “It remains” and the rest of the paragraph should be worded differently to avoid phrases like “at all time devastating” , “a post is a source of this info” and “prior decisions during the last legs of the deceased”. I felt this paragraph was not written clearly. Page 5= figure quoting 88 percent to 96 percent in still births against…” if you can please include from what article it was obtained. Page 14= under subheading “acceptability of virtual autopsy” -if you can change the wording on “positively concerning singleton”, fix non-moslem mother, and clarify “earlier gestation at delivery or TOP, and a maternal” -Under the same section: the statistic of ” thirty three fetuses and the one that follows beneath of “scores greater than 80” have no citation. Also words like “infected or defected” if you can please change or clarify what is meant by that. Page 14 under “discussion” -first sentenced “cash earlier stated” dont know what is meant by that. -I believe the writer explained my limitations in conducting this review instead of explaining the limitations and weaknesses of the studies examined under results. -also under discussion pg 14-15, the facts regarding hepatic iron and free air detection= no citation. Page 16= top of page if the author can explain what T1 and T2 means. Page 16= under subheading ” the results of this study confirm the research hypothesis” -if you can change/clarify what is meant by “showed the rite of an autopsy” Overall, minor details of spelling/grammar like in pg. 2 article instead of author, pg. 5 paediatry and supperior in the pages heading. If you can please just look over the paper in case there are others i did not catch. 1-Under data search heading: This is a bit vague. the search for articles would have to be fully replicable in case the committee wants to go search for the articles– describe the search and so, anyone else would be able to go through your steps and come up with exactly the same articles that you ended up with. if you really have to mention all the databases to capture all the searches, then that’s fine. This just matters a bit more because I only have 5 papers in my results, the committee will have to be very convinced that I have found all of the papers related to my hypothesis. If you have found more that is relevant please feel free to include them The sentence that include the general terms search, It would be better to give the string (with MeSH terms, etc.) that you used in pubmed. Or if you had several strings, use that. 2-Under inclusion/exclusion criteria: In general, dates should be a sharp cutoff. Saying things like “a high chance” makes your choice to include something sound subjective. 3-Under data validity: did you actually exclude any of the studies based on these criteria? If not, leave this out. 4- The data analysis section is not required, you can take it out 5-Under Results: for the two comparison studies, I would avoid describing two studies together like this. Do them one at a time. That way you can make sure that you give a full description for each study.You should say more about the study design. Did they do both perform virtual and traditional autopsy on all 400? Were there any comparison groups? How were the subjects selected? Also get rid of the table, your results all need to be explained in standard sentences in paragraphs. 6-Under Agreement between Traditional Autopsy and Virtual Autopsy Results: when talking about 58 to 60 percent..This is a good example of a section of results that has numerical results (the percent agreement) but no measure of statistical significance. One might find a p value, or confidence intervals, or even a kappa test. If nothing is reported, then you should also say that the authors reported no measure of statistical significance. 7-At the end of the same paragraph, where PM-MRI is better…see if you can find numerical results (along with measures of statistical significance). So when you say PM-MRI is superior in hepatic iron overload, give the numeric value (e.g. percent correct) for PM-MRI and for the comparison, and then a measure of statistical significance, to further support the idea that is better. 8- For the results section: To summarize, what you need to do in the results, is focus just on one study at a time. Introduce the study. Then describe its design – the subjects, number, comparison groups, recruitment, and what was done to all subjects. Then describe the results, including bother the numerical result and measures of statistical significance. Then move on to the next study and do the same thing… Guide to Authors: Research: Literature Review and Analysis (RLRA) Article Preparation ALL PAPERS MUST INCLUDE: 1. TITLE PAGE 2. ABSTRACT PAGE (including Ultramini Abstract) 3. INTRODUCTION 4. METHODS 5. RESULTS 6. DISCUSSION 7. REFERENCES 8. FIGURES AND TABLES Title Page: ● Manuscript Title: Provide a concise, informative title, with no unnecessary words ● Author Name ● Affiliation: Your institution ● Author Information: Complete name, address, telephone number and e-mail address ● Mentor ● Article Word Count (exclusive of abstract and references) on the title page is required. ● Hypothesis: Add a separate section with the testable hypothesis Abstract Page: The Abstract should be structured into four paragraphs not exceeding 250 words total. It must be written in complete sentences, using past tense, active verbs, and third person. Abbreviations should be avoided. No literature should be cited in this section. The abstract must include your testable hypothesis and how you tested it. Sections: ● Hypothesis: describe the hypothesis of the study ● Methods: identify the study design and statistical methods used ● Results: describe the outcome of the study and the statistical significance, if appropriate ● Conclusions: state the significance of the results ● Word Count: provide a word count for the Abstract ● Keywords: following the abstract, provide 3 to 10 keywords for indexing purposes ● Ultramini Abstract (at the bottom of the Abstract Page): Maximum 50 words. Provide 1 to 3 sentences of no more than 50 words total, containing the essence of the paper. Introduction: The Introduction should provide a clear statement of the problem, the relevant literature on the subject, and the proposed approach or solution. The introduction must: ● Be well referenced ● Begin with an impactful statement ● Narrow to the focus of the paper Citations will be written in parenthesis in a consistent format throughout the paper. Methods: Should contain enough information to allow the study to be replicated, including: ● Databases used ● Search strategy ● Search terms ● Inclusion / exclusion criteria ● Other relevant information *Do not limit or filter searches to “full-text only”. Please contact the Librarian if you have difficulty accessing a relevant resource. Results: The results should be presented with clarity and precision. Describe the study methods, controls (if any), numerical findings and statistical significance. If study authors did not provide statistical comparisons, this should be mentioned. Discussion, speculation and detailed interpretation of data should not be included in the Results. ● Results should be explained in a manner that compiles and integrates data contained in multiple studies. In other words, papers are organized in a logical fashion and placed in proximity when they are similar in scope and/or method. See page 7 of Syllabus for more details. ● Any included Figures, Table or graphs should be explained in detail in the text (with numerical data and associated statistics), and cited appropriately in a Legend. Figures, Tables or graphs should be placed in proximity to said text. ● If an Evidence Table was prepared, it should be attached as an Appendix at the end of the paper Discussion: Authors should explain what the results mean and how the results relate to the hypothesis presented as the basis of the study. The discussion should interpret the findings and should include: ● Explanation of the findings ● Interpretation of the Results ● Limitations ● Future directions ● Conclusion: State the conclusions in a few sentences at the end of the paper. References: General – how to cite: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/05/ Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Periodical, volume number(issue number), pages. http://dx.doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyyy (list all authors for each reference, even when there are more than 6): Example: Farrugia, P., Petrisor, B. A., Farrokhyar, F., & Bhandari, M. (2010). Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 53(4), 278–281. Figures and Tables: Examples: Figure 1.Write the figure’s title here. Table 1. Write the table’s title here. Effective Formatting: ● Use upper- and lowercase type: It is much easier to read than all capital letters ● Use a consistent typeface and size (i.e. Times New Roman, 12 point) ● Double space your paper ● Include page numbers Manuscript Submission: All Preliminary Drafts and Final Papers must be submitted via Moodle (LMS) + via email to your mentor in Microsoft Word or Word compatible formats. Saba RLRA Final Paper Rubric Title: The title should be informative and appropriate to the content of the paper. ACCEPTABLE: The title is brief and focused. May not clearly indicate the content of the paper. GOOD: Brief, focused, informative and OUTSTANDING: Brief, narrowly focused, appropriate, and indicates the purpose of informative and appropriate, and clearly the paper. indicates the purpose of the paper. The title captures the readers interest. Hypothesis: Paper must contain a clearly stated, testable hypothesis that is proven or disproven 3points ACCEPTABLE: Hypothesis is clearly stated, but the student may not directly reference the hypothesis for the remainder of the paper. 4points GOOD: Hypothesis is clearly stated and the central purpose or argument is in evidence throughout the paper. 7points ACCEPTABLE: Summarizes the paper’s methods and results with the hypothesis clearly stated. May not follow the recommended structured format. 8points GOOD: Appropriately formatted, informative, and complete. Summarizes the paper’s methods and results with the hypothesis clearly stated. 7points ACCEPTABLE: Demonstrates a general understanding of relevant concepts. A limited synthesis of multiple studies is evident. 8points GOOD: Demonstrates an understanding of relevant concepts, all studies are relevant to research question and hypothesis. Sufficient detail is provided to understand conclusions, without just listing studies. Synthesis of multiple studies is evident. 10points OUTSTANDING: Demonstrates clear understanding of relevant concepts and is a thorough literature review. Wellarticulated and makes interesting or creative points. Appropriate use of tables and figures. Appropriate synthesis of results across studies with attention to methodological heterogeneity and quality. 15points ACCEPTABLE: Demonstrates adequate understanding of the results in relation to the question. 17points GOOD: Demonstrates adequate understanding of the results in relation to the question. Articulates limitations of the review. 19points OUTSTANDING: Keen interpretation and strong understanding of the results in relation to the literature, clearly articulates limitations and provides possible avenues for future study. 15points ACCEPTABLE: Although attributions are provided, some statements seem unsubstantiated. Limited peer reviewed sources, including some older/out of date references. There are minor errors in the APA format. 17points GOOD: All references are current and peer reviewed. All claims are adequately supported. APA format is appropriately used. 19points OUTSTANDING: References are current and peer-reviewed, from well-known professional journals. Evidence provided to support claims is compelling and properly attributed. APA format is used accurately and consistently throughout. 8points GOOD: Proofread and in the recommended format, with very few issues with spelling, grammar, etc. 10points OUTSTANDING: Thoroughly proofread and contains no issues with formatting, spelling, grammar, etc. 8points 10points Abstract: The abstract should clearly state the hypothesis as well as summarize the methods and results (~250 words). Introduction: The introduction should begin broadly, gain focus, be referenced and explain why the study is important. Methods: The methods should describe the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria and data analysis. Results: The results should demonstrate clear understanding and synthesize outcomes across studies (not merely a listing of studies). **An evidence table cannot suffice as a results section. If an evidence table is used it should be included as an appendix. Discussion: The discussion should demonstrate interpretation of the results, note limitations and identify areas for future study. References: References should be presented in a standard format and demonstrate the contemporary nature of the paper. 6points OUTSTANDING: The paper is focused around a clearly stated hypothesis. The writer’s central purpose or argument is readily apparent to the reader throughout the paper. 10points OUTSTANDING: Abstract is the proper length. Clearly states the hypothesis; succinctly summarizes the paper’s methods and results in a manner that makes the reader eager to read the remainder of the paper. 3points 4points 6points ACCEPTABLE: Begins broadly, may GOOD: Begins broadly, gains focus, OUTSTANDING: Begins broadly, quickly includes references, and addresses why gains focus, is appropriately referenced struggle to gains focus, includes limited the study is important. and clearly articulates why the study is references. important. 7points 8points 10points ACCEPTABLE: Briefly describes a limited GOOD: Describes an appropriate strategy OUTSTANDING: Clearly describes an strategy for literature search, study for literature search, study excellent strategy for literature search, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and methods inclusion/exclusion criteria, methods of study inclusion/exclusion criteria, and of data synthesis. Student may have data synthesis. methods of data synthesis. Reader is neglected some important key words or confident in their ability to replicate the well known studies. search strategy and results. 7points Other points: Spelling, ACCEPTABLE: Only minor issues with grammar, tables, figures, etc. formatting, spelling, grammar, etc. May not have consistently followed recommended formatting. 7points Research: Literature Review & Analysis Saba University School of Medicine Summer 2019 Professors/Coordinator Dr. James Bruzik Phone: 978-862-9600 ext 405 j.bruzik@saba.edu (Course Director) Sam Johnson Phone: 416-3456 ext 237 s.johnson@saba.edu Sarah Hammond Phone: 978-862-9600 Ext 422 rlra@saba.edu (Course Coordinator) 1. Introduction: Students will produce a hypothesis-based review of the primary literature relevant to a contemporary medical issue, problem or controversy. Papers will follow a specific format specified in this syllabus and outlined in the RLRA Guide to Authors (Appendix C). The hypothesis-based review must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic, methodology and implications of the cited primary literature, especially with respect to clinical trials. The final product will be 20-30 pages excluding appendices and references, double spaced, 10-12 point font, default margins, suitable for publication with references to the literature cited. A simple summary of the medical literature on a specific topic (standard review article), is not an acceptable format for this assignment. Students that produce exceptional hypothesis-based reviews will be encouraged to consider submitting their final papers for peer-reviewed publication with the support of the RLRA faculty. 2. Course duration: The course begins in the 4th semester and is completed during the 6th semester. 3. General teaching methods: One-on-one mentoring by an assigned faculty mentor 4. Course Objectives: Throughout the course you will develop skills related to: A.) Searching clinical and basic science literature in a systematic manner, following an B.) C.) D.) E.) F.) G.) H.) I.) J.) K.) L.) M.) 5. appropriate search methodology Establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria for primary literature searches Understanding clinical and basic scientific research Critical appraisal of primary literature Developing a research question from a broad topic Developing a clear hypothesis derived from a research question Formulating a plan and timetable for completion of a detailed, primary literature-based project Integrating basic and clinical science to address contemporary issues in medicine Synthesizing information from multiple sources into a coherent presentation Interpersonal skills in a mentor – mentee relationship Reflecting on social and ethical consequences of medicine Independently producing a scholarly product Effective written communication skills Course Content: o o o o o 6. Research questions Hypothesis generation Critical appraisal of the primary literature Independent research Effective written communication Course Competencies: · 2 SCIENTIFIC & MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE: Students must demonstrate knowledge about established and evolving biomedical, clinical, and associated sciences and application of this knowledge to the practice of medicine throughout the life cycle. The medical graduate will be expected to: a. Demonstrate knowledge of the scientific and humanistic foundations of medicine Methods of Teaching: Independent study with mentor guidance Methods of Assessment: Writing assignments (RLRA Preliminary Draft – Formative; RLRA Forms 1 and 2, and RLRA Final Paper – Summative). See Appendix A for grading criteria In order to satisfy the SCIENTIFIC & MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE: 2a Competency, the students must receive a passing grade on their final paper. · 3 LIFELONG LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP, & COLLABORATION: Students must be able to examine and evaluate their patient care practices, appraise and assimilate scientific evidence, and use this information to improve their abilities. The medical graduate is expected to: a. Display intellectual curiosity, willingness to examine assumptions and commitment to lifelong learning Methods of Teaching: Independent study with mentor guidance Methods of Assessment: Writing assignments (RLRA Preliminary Draft – Formative; RLRA Forms 1 and 2, and RLRA Final Paper – Summative). See Appendix A for grading criteria. c. Use information technology to access medical information and support his or her own education Methods of Teaching: Independent study with mentor guidance Methods of Assessment: Writing assignments (RLRA Preliminary Draft – Formative; RLRA Forms 1 and 2, and RLRA Final Paper – Summative). See Appendix A for grading criteria. d. Apply knowledge of scientific methods to locate, appraise, and assimilate evidence from scientific studies Methods of Teaching: Independent study with mentor guidance Methods of Assessment: Writing assignments (RLRA Preliminary Draft – Formative; RLRA Forms 1 and 2, and RLRA Final Paper – Summative). See Appendix A for grading criteria. e. Use scientific inquiry and methods to initiate and evaluate research Methods of Teaching: Independent study with mentor guidance Methods of Assessment: Writing assignments (RLRA Preliminary Draft – Formative; RLRA Forms 1 and 2, and RLRA Final Paper – Summative). See Appendix A for grading criteria Any unsatisfactory grade (U) received for any competency or sub-competency other than “2a. Scientific and Medical Knowledge” must be remediated. The remediation requirements will be determined by the course director in consultation with the competency director for that particular competency. 7. Course Procedures: 1. Choose a topic from the RLRA topic bank provided or identify your own topic. Submit the Topic Selection Form to the RLRA Committee, via the lms.saba.edu, no later the assigned due date in the 4th semester. Please see lms.saba.edu for detailed instructions on submitting your own topic. 2. After your topic has been approved, submit your RLRA Research Proposal – Part I to your faculty mentor, via the appropriate drop box on lms.saba.edu, no later than the assigned due date in the 4th semester. DO NOT BE LATE. NO CREDIT FOR LATE OR INCOMPLETE FORMS. 3. Fully define your plan for the hypothesis-based review during the 5th semester. The plan (RLRA Research Proposal – Part II) must be completed, approved by your faculty mentor, and submitted to the appropriate drop box on lms.saba.edu no later than the assigned due date in the 5th semester. DO NOT BE LATE. NO CREDIT FOR LATE OR INCOMPLETE FORMS. 4. Prepare the RLRA Preliminary Draft of your paper after taking USMLE Step I during the pre-6 semester. Submit the Preliminary Draft to your faculty mentor, via the appropriate drop box on lms.saba.edu. The RLRA Preliminary Draft will be reviewed by your faculty mentor using the RLRA Paper Review Form (Appendix D) and returned to you with suggested revisions. You will prepare a response to the review and include suggested revisions prior to submission of the RLRA Final Paper. 5. The RLRA Final Paper needs to be completed, submitted via lms.saba.edu in a Microsoft Word or Word compatible format, and assessed by your faculty mentor and the RLRA Review Committee before scheduling your first clinical rotation. The RLRA Review Committee will review your final paper, and if acceptable, award the final grade for this course. In instances where the RLRA Review Committee does not believe the paper meets minimum standards, the student will receive the committee’s suggestions for revision. The student will have to respond to the committee in a timely manner (stipulated by the committee), and the paper will be reviewed again with assignment of a final grade reflecting the need for revision of the RLRA Final Paper. If the paper continues to be unacceptable, the committee will, at its sole discretion, award a failing grade for this course. As with any failing grade, the student will be placed on academic probation and be required to repeat the course. Deadlines: Semester Assignment Due Due before: 4th Semester Topic Selection Form and Student Derived Topic Proposals May 31, 2019 (Form Opens 5/27/19) RLRA Research Proposal – Part I (APPROVED BY MENTOR) July 26, 2019 5th Semester RLRA Research Proposal – Part II (APPROVED BY MENTOR) July 26, 2019 Pre – 6th Semester RLRA Preliminary Draft (REVIEWED BY MENTOR) RLRA Final Paper (APPROVED BY MENTOR AND RLRA REVIEW COMMITTEE) 1st Clinical Rotation Scheduled **Any student who fails to deliver an RLRA Final Paper (as defined in the course Syllabus) in a form and manner acceptable to the such student’s mentor within 90 days of passing USMLE Step 1, but in no event later than one (1) calendar year from the last official day of the semester in which such student completed the basic sciences curriculum, will be placed on academic leave and be subject to dismissal. 7. Grading Policy: Your course grade is determined based on review rubrics for deliverable products as outlined below. Each grade element is as follows: RLRA Research Proposal – Part I 5 points RLRA Research Proposal – Part II 10 points RLRA Preliminary Draft 0 points 85 points (10pts Mentor/ 75pts Committee) RLRA Final Paper Total 100 points NOTE: There is NO credit for late assignments. If at any point in this process, you are mathematically unable to pass (cannot obtain at least 70 points), you will immediately receive a grade of “F”. Each of these elements is described in detail in the syllabus. If the requirements for this class are unclear, it is your responsibility to remedy the situation by contacting your faculty mentor. Percent of Points Grade 90-100 A 80-89 B 70-79 C Below 70 F Academic Integrity: It is the philosophy of Saba University School of Medicine that academic dishonesty is a completely unacceptable mode of conduct and will not be tolerated in any form. All persons involved in academic dishonesty will be disciplined in accordance with University regulations and procedures. Discipline may include suspension or expulsion from the University. Academic dishonesty includes but is not limited to cheating, plagiarism, complicity, submission for credit of any work or materials that are attributable in whole or in part to another person, any act designed to give unfair advantage to a student or the attempt to commit such acts. RLRA Final Papers will be assessed for plagiarized content prior to review by the RLRA Review Committee. To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you: · · · · cite another person’s idea, opinion or theory; utilize any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge; quote another person’s actual spoken or written words; or paraphrase another person’s spoken or written words If you are unsure about what constitutes plagiarism you can refer to: http://www.plagiarism.org/ 8. Course Elements: The course will consist of critically appraising and evaluating relevant primary literature to address your research question and hypothesis. Regular interactions with your faculty mentor throughout the course and during the writing process are expected. After completing each of the assignments, the student will receive feedback from their faculty mentor. The student is to incorporate this feedback into future stages of the project. If the student fails to meet the minimum standards for any of the assignments they must make revisions until the required standards are met (see Appendix A). The final paper should follow the specified format and include distinct components as described in this syllabus. Topic Selection: At the beginning of the 4th semester you must select a topic for your hypothesis-based review from the RLRA Topic Bank or submit your own topic along with the name of a potential faculty mentor. The Topic Selection Form must be submitted no later than the assigned due date in the 4th semester in order for the committee to review your request. If you choose to employ your own topic, you must also select your top 5 choices from the Topic Bank as an alternative in the event that your topic is not approved. You will be notified, within four weeks of submitting the Topic Selection Form, whether your topic has been approved. Topics are awarded on a first come, first serve basis. A maximum of 3 students will be allowed per RLRA Topic. If you choose to develop your own topic, you must also select a faculty member to mentor your hypothesis-based review. Please make sure there is not a systematic review of the topic already published which answers your specific research question and hypothesis. If a recent systematic review of the selected topic exists, it will not be approved. RLRA Research Proposal: A written proposal describing your plan must be submitted to your faculty mentor for review and will be completed in two parts (RLRA Research Proposal – Part I and RLRA Research Proposal – Part II). Proposals may be turned in any time prior to the deadline during the semester in which they are due. A successful hypothesis-based review begins with a clear research question and hypothesis. These required elements are key to successful completion of the project. RLRA Research Proposal – Part I: RLRA Research Proposal Part I should be brief, generally 1-2 typed pages, and should provide enough information to give your faculty mentor a good idea of what you plan to do. It should include your topic, background and rationale, research question and hypothesis. You must submit RLRA Research Proposal Part I no later than the assigned due date in the 4th Semester (see Section 6: Course Procedures> Deadlines). Failure to submit this component in a timely manner will result in your being placed on administrative leave the following semester and subject to dismissal. In addition, you will forfeit 5 points of your grade. RLRA Research Proposal – Part II: RLRA Research Proposal Part II builds upon RLRA Research Proposal Part I and includes your hypothesis, search strategy, strategy for synthesizing data, (i.e., outline of your evidence table), timetable for completion and results of a preliminary literature search (10 references minimum). You must submit the RLRA Research Proposal Part II no later than the assigned due date in the 5th Semester (see Section 6: Course Procedures> Deadlines). Failure to submit this component in a timely manner will result in your being placed on administrative leave the following semester and subject to dismissal. In addition, you will forfeit 10 points of your grade. RLRA Preliminary Draft and RLRA Final Paper: Please consult the RLRA Guide to Authors (Appendix C) A standard format is used for writing scientific papers that includes: A title page with the author’s name An abstract An introduction with background information The methods used A results section A discussion/interpretation of the results Literature cited Tables and figures (i.e. evidence table) TITLE – should be brief and narrowly focused. ABSTRACT (~250 words) – The Abstract is a succinct summary of the papers hypothesis, methods, results and conclusions. It is placed at the beginning of the paper; however it is written at the end of the process. INTRODUCTION – The Introduction provides a rationale for why the study was done. It should begin with a broad introduction to the issues, and narrow its focus to the specifics of the hypothesis-based review. It should convince the reader that an important topic and research question has been addressed via a clear hypothesis. It could include data on the public health impact (e.g., incidence rate, mortality rate, costs) of the problem when possible. By the end of the introduction, the reader should understand what your study was about and why it was an important study to do. METHODS – The Methods must contain enough information to enable another investigator to replicate your study. This section must include: How articles were selected (search strategy) Search terms used* Inclusion and exclusion criteria* How you created your evidence table(s) In addition, it may include: Definitions of important terms Descriptions of any calculations you made *Do not limit or filter searches to “full-text only”. Please contact the Librarian if you have difficulty accessing a relevant resource. RESULTS – Typically, the first results presented describe the sample of articles on which the remaining results are based. Describe the studies in general. How many articles with a specific study design were found? How many head-to-head comparisons were found? How many with a particular type of study population? How many studies used a certain type of outcome assessment? You may want to create a table summarizing this information. Below is an outline of what a Study Design Table may look like. Summary of Study Designs Reviewed Study Design # of Studies Clinical Trial 4 Cohort Study 5 Case Series 3 After you have described the studies in general, describe the studies in detail, using numerical findings and statistics reported, as appropriate, to augment the reader’s understanding. This section must contain student-generated writing and NOT merely tables and graphics. At a minimum, touch upon the elements listed in the selection criteria and give the main results of the studies. If any Tables, Figures or Graphs are included, they must be fully explained in the text, including numerical findings and statistics. If they are borrowed from the literature, they must contain an appropriate citation in the accompanying Legend. The most important aspect of the Results section is that the author provides a compilation of the data contained in the sources utilized. This means arranging related studies together, where appropriate, into sections that flow logically, and ensuring that papers with similar scope and methods are described in proximity to one another. Combine these studies into a single paragraph when appropriate, and consider style (e.g. a paragraph that runs on or takes a full page is probably too long). However, you should describe any methodological differences between the studies, and detail the numerical data and statistics for each. It is important to understand that when you are reviewing a volume of evidence on a particular topic that not all forms of evidence can be considered of equal value. It is widely accepted in the scientific and healthcare community that there are four levels of clinical treatment evidence. Although there are subtle variations depending on the organization, the basic categorizations are the same. These distinctions can be noted in an Evidence Table, which is most appropriately placed as an Appendix at the end the paper. Level 0: Preclinical studies– including experimental studies and animal models Level 1: Randomized controlled trials Level 2: Non-randomized controlled trial – a prospective (pre-planned) study with a predetermined eligibility criteria and outcome measures Level 3: Observational studies with controls- includes retrospective, case-control studies, and cohort studies Level 4: Observational studies without controls – includes cohort studies without controls, case series without controls, case studies without controls DISCUSSION – The Discussion must demonstrate an interpretation and synthesis of the results. Discuss the implications of the methodological choices made by the authors or weaknesses and limitations of the studies examined and how those choices or weaknesses could influence the results of the individual studies and the results of your hypothesis-based review. Comment on the ability to generalize (i.e., does it apply to all patients, only pediatric patients, patients in both urban and rural areas, etc.) from your study. Was your hypothesis proven or disproven? What are possible areas for future study? LITERATURE CITED – a standard bibliographic format using ICMJE or APA for all articles cited (see Appendix B). APPENDICES – Evidence Table, Graphs, Figures, etc. If you created an Evidence Table for the RLRA Research Proposal – Part II, this should serve as a guide as you create the Results section of the paper. The Evidence Table is not meant to limit the resources that you use as you should update and add to it as you begin to write the RLRA Preliminary Draft. The Evidence Table should not be included as part of the Results section. It may be included as an Appendix to the RLRA Final Paper. NOTE: All sections of the Evidence Table must be written in your own words. Do not plagiarize from the primary sources to complete the table (especially relevant to the Outcome / Results column). Helpful hint: change the page orientation to landscape for the appendix containing the Evidence Table so that the columns are wider and easier to read. Example of an Evidence Table First Author Date of Publication Study Design Level of Evidence Study Population Therapy or Exposure Outcome/ Results Dow, BE July 2009 RCT 1 Female runners Caffeine Individuals in the caffeine group had faster lap times than those who did not receive caffeine. Smith, CA May 2004 Retrospective chart review 4 Female patients admitted to tertiary care center with chest pain History of consumption of caffeinated beverage in previous 24 hrs Patients experiencing chest pain were more likely to have consumed caffeinated beverages in the past 24 hours. Similarly, if you created a Topic Sentence Outline for the RLRA Research Proposal – Part II, this should also serve as a guide as you develop the Results section of the paper. This should also be updated as you go along and add (or subtract) studies. The utility of the Outline is that it helps to maintain a logical flow of Results and even Discussion sections. The use of subheadings is encouraged. Example of a Topic Sentence Outline Introduction I will introduce the background to this topic in this section. Insert the references, like review articles, here. Two or 3 is enough. (However, if you want to save time later, you can outline the whole Intro in more detail, with all of your background references. Once you have a logical flow, that’s half the battle.) Methods Describe your Search Strategy here. (Databases to be searched; keywords to search; inclusion / exclusion criteria {i.e. – range of publication dates; study population(s); criteria for assessing the quality of a study, etc.}) Results (Most important section of the Outline; this is where you definitely want to make topic sentences and organize them in an outline in order to get a logical flow, study by study. When you come back to it months later, you will quickly be reminded about how to start.) Example 1: Animal research on hypothermia in ASCI Experimental animal research suggests that hypothermia influences the course of injury and repair following ASCI. The data demonstrates that animals with spinal cord injury treated with hypothermia exhibit greater histologic, electrophysiologic, and neurobehavioural recovery than controls. Batchelor, P. E., N. F. Kerr, et al. (2010). “Hypothermia prior to decompression: buying time for treatment of acute spinal cord injury.” J Neurotrauma 27(8): 1357-1368. Batchelor, P. E., P. Skeers, et al. (2013). “Systematic review and meta-analysis of therapeutic hypothermia in animal models of spinal cord injury.” PLoS One 8(8): e71317. Dietrich, W. D., C. M. Atkins, et al. (2009). “Protection in animal models of brain and spinal cord injury with mild to moderate hypothermia.” J Neurotrauma 26(3): 301-312. Clinical research on hypothermia in ASCI Evidence derived from studies investigating the clinical application of hypothermia after ASCI demonstrate that therapeutic hypothermia is safe and effective and promotes measurable electrophysiological and neurological recovery. Major complications encountered during these studies were respiratory and infectious in nature. Cappuccino, A., L. J. Bisson, et al. (2010). “The use of systemic hypothermia for the treatment of an acute cervical spinal cord injury in a professional football player.” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(2): E57-62. Dididze, M., B. A. Green, et al. (2013). “Systemic hypothermia in acute cervical spinal cord injury: a case-controlled study.” Spinal Cord 51(5): 395-400. Dietrich, W. D., A. Cappuccino, et al. (2011). “Systemic hypothermia for the treatment of acute cervical spinal cord injury in sports.” Curr Sports Med Rep 10(1): 50-54. Example 2: Exercise is effective in the prevention of early onset dementia · Based on self-reports of exercising, individuals who exercised 3 times a week had lower incidence of developing Alzheimer’s disease as compared to individuals who do not exercise (Larson, 2006) · Physiology behind exercise preventing early onset include increasing hippocampus size and improving memory (Erikson, 2011) · Evidence of increase in hippocampal brain-derived neurotrophic factor in Ɛ4 Alzheimer mouse models after exercise (Nichol, 2009) Exercise improves frontal cognitive functioning · The rationale of improving frontal cognitive functioning in order to prevent falls in dementia patients (Sheridan, 2007) · Single blind, controlled study of a 12 week exercise regime showing improvement in MMSE scores (Viola, 2011) · Positive and significant correlation exists between exercise and brain volume as demonstrated by MRI (Benedict, 2011) Discussion I will briefly summarize the findings in Results and critically analyze those data in this section. If data from comparable studies yielded differing results or conclusions, I will attempt to determine why. I will also analyze all studies for their possible limitations. (Again, you can outline this in more detail, but you won’t be expected to do that because you haven’t analyzed the papers yet.) APPENDIX A RLRA Research Proposal – Part I Grading Criteria Section Required Criteria Criteria of Excellence Background and Rationale Provides a brief introduction to the problem, its significance and why you chose this topic. In your preliminary assessment of your research question and hypothesis, you should determine the feasibility of your proposal. Uses real data to back claims of significance. Research Question Follows a standard format (i.e. PICO) Is important, creative and focused. Hypothesis Predicts the relationship between the variables Is identified as a specific type of hypothesis (i.e. directional, nondirectional, no relationship) RLRA Research Proposal – Part II Grading Criteria Section Required Criteria Criteria of Excellence Search Strategy Includes databases to be searched, keywords to search, date range of studies to be considered, study populations, criteria for assessing quality of studies Includes key terms and Boolean terms to be used, descriptions of any limits used (clinical trials, publication dates, articles in certain journals, by certain authors). Sets all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Strategy for synthesizing data Describes how the information will be integrated across studies to answer the research question and address the hypothesis. Provides evidence table or topical outline with basic details and adequate organization. Provides evidence table or topical outline that is detailed and well organized. Timetable Provides a realistic timeline for completing the remainder of the project. Provides a realistic and detailed timeline for completing the remainder of the project. Preliminary Lit. Search Reference list of a minimum of 10 published studies N/A APPENDIX A RLRA Final Paper Grading Criteria – Please also refer to the RLRA Paper Review Form (Appendix D) The following criteria will be used by the committee to evaluate your paper (and will be given to your faculty mentor to guide you): Section Required Criteria Criteria of Excellence Title Brief and narrowly focused Brief, narrowly focused and clearly indicates purpose of the paper Abstract Summarizes of the paper’s methods and results with the hypothesis clearly stated Clearly states the hypothesis; succinctly summarizes the paper’s methods and results in a manner that makes the reader eager to read the remainder of the paper. Methods Describes strategy for literature search, study inclusion/exclusion criteria, methods of data synthesis Clearly describes excellent strategy for literature search, study inclusion/exclusion criteria, and methods of data synthesis Results Demonstrates general understanding of relevant concepts. Results described appropriately (i.e., reviewed studies relevant to research question and hypothesis; not missing important studies; not drawing inappropriate conclusions or going beyond the data, enough detail provided to understand conclusions without just listing studies, results are related specifically back to question). Compilation and integration of multiple studies is evident. See page 7. Demonstrates clear understanding of relevant concepts and thorough literature review. Well-articulated and makes interesting or creative points. Appropriate use of tables and figures. Appropriate compilation, differentiation, and integration of results across studies with attention to methodological differences and quality. Discussion Demonstrates adequate understanding of the results in relation to the question. Synthesis and comparison of studies is evident. Articulates limitations of the studies and the review itself. Keen interpretation and strong understanding of the results in relation to the literature, clearly articulates limitations and provides possible avenues for future study. Literature Cited Contains an adequate number of appropriate references in a standard format. Contains an exceptional number of recent references in a standard format. Other points Only minor issues with formatting, spelling, grammar, etc. Thoroughly proofread and contains no issues with formatting, spelling, grammar, etc. Summary of Review and Overall Evaluation Contains only limited negative feedback based on the categories above. Contains no negative feedback related to the categories above. APPENDIX B RLRA Library Resources I. SUSOM Website/Library Database Resources Available via http://www.sabamed.org/SUSOMLibrary/EBM%20research%20resources.htm · · · · · · · · PubMed/Clinical Queries Cochrane Library AHRQ National Guideline Clearinghouses Scirus for Scientific Information MedScape/emedicine Quertle NLM Plus EBOC-Evidence Based on Call Additional Websites · ClinicalTrials.gov http://clinicaltrials.gov/ · Center for Reviews and Dissemination Database/CRD Database http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CMS2Web/ · Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com · Trip Database http://www.tripdatabase.com/ II. Searching/Literature Tutorials PubMed · · http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/viewlet/search/subject/subject.html http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/EBM_litsearch/case1page.html OVIDSP · http://library.medicine.yale.edu/guides/ovid Yale Find it Fast Searching Videos · http://library.medicine.yale.edu/guides/feature/finditfast Studying a Study Online · http://www.studyingastudy.com/index.html APPENDIX B III. Full-Text Articles · · · · · Ebscohost (SUSOM Library Subscription) PubMed Central http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ Biomed Central (http://www.sabamed.org/SUSOMLibrary/freefulltext.htm) HighWire (http://www.sabamed.org/SUSOMLibrary/freefulltext.htm) Directory of Open Access Journals (http://www.sabamed.org/SUSOMLibrary/freefulltext.htm) IV. Websites Related to Scientific Writing · Columbia University: Writing a Scientific Research Paper http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/ug/research/paper.html · How to Write a Paper in Scientific Journal Style http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/ug/research/paper.html · Elements of Style , William Strunk http://www.bartleby.com/141/ · SciDev. Net: How do I write a Scientific Paper http://www.scidev.net/en/practical-guides/how-do-i-write-a-scientific-paper-.html · PDF Guidelines for Writing Scientific Papers http://umech.mit.edu/freeman/6.021J/2000/writing.pdf · Plagiarism Resource Sites http://abacus.bates.edu/cbb/index.html · Academic Integrity Resource Center http://learningcommons.ubc.ca/get-study-help/academic-integrity/ · Turnitin http://www.turnitin.com/en_us/home V. RLRA RECOMMENDED STYLE FOR REFERENCES APPENDIX B (1) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Sample References http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors offers guidance to authors in its Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (ICMJE Recommendations) publication. The recommended style for references is based on the National Information Standards Organization NISO Z39.29-2005 (R2010) Bibliographic References as adapted by the National Library of Medicine for its databases. Details are in Citing Medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7256/ (2) APA Style Manual http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/ http://sites.umuc.edu/library/libhow/apa_examples.cfm?noprint=true#intext http://lms.saba.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=8649 VI. Literature Review Articles A. Relevant Articles Research Questions, Hypotheses and Objectives Farrugia, P., Petrisor, B. A., Farrokhyar, F., & Bhandari, M. (2010). Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 53(4), 278–281. Why the literature review is important Kremenak, N. (2010). Why the Literature Review is Important. Journal of Prosthodontics, 19(8), 656. PubMed instruction for medical students: searching for a better way Tuttle B.D., Von Isenburg M., Schardt C., & Powers A. (2009). PubMed instruction for medical students: searching for a better way. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 28(3), 199-210. Conducting efficient literature searches APPENDIX B Cleary M., Hunt G.E., Horsfall J. (2009). Conducting efficient literature searches. J. Psychosoc. Nurs. Men.t Health Serv., 47(11), 34-41. Backing up your statements: how to perform literature searches to prove your points Foote M. (2009). Backing up your statements: how to perform literature searches to prove your points. Chest, 136(5), 1432-1434. Writing a literature review article Aaron L. (2008). Writing a literature review article. Radiol. Technol., 80(2), 185-186. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach Cronin P., Ryan F., & Coughlan M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. Br. J. Nurs., 17(1), 38-43. Finding truth from the medical literature: how to critically evaluate an article Miser W.F. (2006). Finding truth from the medical literature: how to critically evaluate an article. Prim. Care, 33(4), 839-862. An introduction to evidence-based medicine Miser W.F. (2006). An introduction to evidence-based medicine. Prim. Care, 33(4), 811-829. How to write an evidence-based clinical review article Siwek J., Gourlay M.L., Slawson D.C., & Shaughnessy A.F. (2002). How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Am. Fam. Physician. 65(2), 251-258. How to write a review article Williamson, R.C. (2001). How to write a review article. Hosp Med. 62(12), 780-782. B. How to Read a Paper. Trisha Greenhalgh. BMJ Articles APPENDIX B 1. Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) Greenhalgh T.& Taylor R. (1997). Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ, 315, 740-7 2. Papers that summarize other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) Greenhalgh T. (1997). Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). BMJ, 315, 672-675. 3. How to read a paper. Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses) Greenhalgh T. (1997). How to read a paper. Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses). BMJ, 315, 596-599. 4. How to read a paper. Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests Greenhalgh T. (1997). How to read a paper. Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests. BMJ, 315, 540-543. 5. How to read a paper. Papers that report drug trials Greenhalgh T. (1997). How to read a paper. Papers that report drug trials. BMJ, 315, 480-483. 6. How to read a paper. Statistics for the non-statistician. II: “Significant” relations and their pitfalls Greenhalgh T. (1997). How to read a paper. Statistics for the non-statistician. II: “Significant” relations and their pitfalls. BMJ, 315, 422-425. 7. How to read a paper. Statistics for the non-statistician. I: Different types of data need different statistical tests. Greenhalgh T. (1997). How to read a paper. Statistics for the non-statistician. I: Different types of data need different statistical tests. BMJ, 315, 364-366. 8. Assessing the methodological quality of published papers Greenhalgh T. (1997). Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. BMJ, 315, 305-308. 9. How to read a paper. Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about) APPENDIX B Greenhalgh T. (1997). How to read a paper. Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ, 315, 243-246. 10. How to read a paper. The Medline database Greenhalgh T. (1997). How to read a paper. The Medline database. BMJ, 315, 180-183. VII. Research and Writing Textbooks 1. Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 2. Garrard, J. (2014). Health sciences literature review made easy (4th Edition). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. 3. Fink, A. (2014). Conducting research literature reviews: From internet to paper (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 4. Guyatt, G., Rennie, D., Meade, M.O., & Cook, D.J. (2008). JAMAevidence users guides to the medical literature (2nd Edition). McGraw-Hill. 5. Huth, J.J. (1999). Writing and publishing in medicine (3rd Edition). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 6. Day, R. (2011). How to write and publish a wcientific paper (7 th Edition). Greenwood. 7. Greenhalgh, T. (2010). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence based medicine (4th Edition). BMJ Books. 2003 Online edition available online at: (http://www.hstathome.com/tjziyuan/How%20to%20Read%20a%20Paper%20evadence_based%20medicine.pdf) 8. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Edition). (2009). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 9. Perrins, R. (2012). Pocket Guide to APA Style (4th Edition). Independence, KY: Cengage Learning. 10. Riegelman, R. K. (2012). Studying a study and testing a test: How to read the medical evidence (6th Edition). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. APPENDIX C Guide to Authors: Research: Literature Review and Analysis (RLRA) Article Preparation ALL PAPERS MUST INCLUDE: 1. TITLE PAGE 2. ABSTRACT PAGE (including Ultramini Abstract) 3. INTRODUCTION 4. METHODS 5. RESULTS 6. DISCUSSION 7. REFERENCES 8. FIGURES AND TABLES Title Page: ● Manuscript Title: Provide a concise, informative title, with no unnecessary words ● Author Name ● Affiliation: Your institution ● Author Information: Complete name, address, telephone number and e-mail address ● Mentor ● Article Word Count (exclusive of abstract and references) on the title page is required. ● Hypothesis: Add a separate section with the testable hypothesis Abstract Page: The Abstract should be structured into four paragraphs not exceeding 250 words total. It must be written in complete sentences, using past tense, active verbs, and third person. Abbreviations should be avoided. No literature should be cited in this section. The abstract must include your testable hypothesis and how you tested it. Sections: ● Hypothesis: describe the hypothesis of the study ● Methods: identify the study design and statistical methods used ● Results: describe the outcome of the study and the statistical significance, if appropriate ● Conclusions: state the significance of the results ● Word Count: provide a word count for the Abstract ● Keywords: following the abstract, provide 3 to 10 keywords for indexing purposes ● Ultramini Abstract (at the bottom of the Abstract Page): Maximum 50 words. Provide 1 to 3 sentences of no more than 50 words total, containing the essence of the paper. APPENDIX C Introduction: The Introduction should provide a clear statement of the problem, the relevant literature on the subject, and the proposed approach or solution. The introduction must: ● Be well referenced ● Begin with an impactful statement ● Narrow to the focus of the paper Citations will be written in parenthesis in a consistent format throughout the paper. Methods: Should contain enough information to allow the study to be replicated, including: ● Databases used ● Search strategy ● Search terms ● Inclusion / exclusion criteria ● Other relevant information *Do not limit or filter searches to “full-text only”. Please contact the Librarian if you have difficulty accessing a relevant resource. Results: The results should be presented with clarity and precision. Describe the study methods, controls (if any), numerical findings and statistical significance. If study authors did not provide statistical comparisons, this should be mentioned. Discussion, speculation and detailed interpretation of data should not be included in the Results. ● Results should be explained in a manner that compiles and integrates data contained in multiple studies. In other words, papers are organized in a logical fashion and placed in proximity when they are similar in scope and/or method. See page 7 of Syllabus for more details. ● Any included Figures, Table or graphs should be explained in detail in the text (with numerical data and associated statistics), and cited appropriately in a Legend. Figures, Tables or graphs should be placed in proximity to said text. ● If an Evidence Table was prepared, it should be attached as an Appendix at the end of the paper Discussion: Authors should explain what the results mean and how the results relate to the hypothesis presented as the basis of the study. The discussion should interpret the findings and should include: ● Explanation of the findings ● Interpretation of the Results ● Limitations ● Future directions ● Conclusion: State the conclusions in a few sentences at the end of the paper. APPENDIX C References: General – how to cite: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/05/ Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Periodical, volume number(issue number), pages. http://dx.doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyyy (list all authors for each reference, even when there are more than 6): Example: Farrugia, P., Petrisor, B. A., Farrokhyar, F., & Bhandari, M. (2010). Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 53(4), 278–281. Figures and Tables: Examples: Figure 1.Write the figure’s title here. Table 1. Write the table’s title here. Effective Formatting: ● Use upper- and lowercase type: It is much easier to read than all capital letters ● Use a consistent typeface and size (i.e. Times New Roman, 12 point) ● Double space your paper ● Include page numbers Manuscript Submission: All Preliminary Drafts and Final Papers must be submitted via Moodle (LMS) + via email to your mentor in Microsoft Word or Word compatible formats. APPENDIX D RLRA Paper Review Form Preliminary Draft ☐ Final Paper ☐ Student Name: Title: Reviewer: Mentor: Final Grade (Revise=R): Preliminary Grade: Preliminary Draft Grade Title: The title should be informative and appropriate to the content of the paper. Hypothesis: Papers must contain a clearly stated, testable hypothesis that is proven or disproven. Abstract: The abstract should clearly state the hypothesis as well as summarize the methods and results (~250 words). Introduction: The introduction should begin broadly, gain focus, be referenced and tell the reader why the study is important. Methods: The methods should describe the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria and data analysis. Results: The results should demonstrate a clear understanding and integration of outcomes across studies in a consistent and logical flow (not merely a listing of studies). Discussion: The discussion should demonstrate interpretation of the results, note limitations and identify areas for future study. References: References should be presented in a standard format and demonstrate the contemporary nature of the paper. Other points: Spelling, grammar, tables, figures, etc. Summary of Review and Overall Evaluation:: Reasons why RLRA Papers Fail The RLRA Committee has failed Final Papers and sent the authors back for revisions for the following reasons: The student failed to: • view the RLRA Guide to Authors and their paper is not in the proper format. • clearly state their Hypothesis. A Hypothesis is a single, declarative statement that is testable. If your “Hypothesis” has more then one sentence or there is a question mark “?” at the end of your “Hypothesis”, please revise prior to submission. • to properly describe their Methods; as a result, the Methods are not replicable. (e.g. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly listed and student should indicate which search terms were used). • explain Results in sufficient detail. Describe the study methods, controls (if any), numerical findings, with associated errors, and statistical significance. If numerical findings, errors or statistical measures were not reported in the paper, the student must explicitly state that. While evidence tables are encouraged, they should be in the Appendix. • critically analyze the Results in the Discussion section. Self-critical statements by study authors are insufficient. Student should demonstrate analysis and identify strengths and/or weaknesses of papers (methods, conclusions, etc.). • incorporate interpretation, limitations, conclusions and future directions in the Discussion. Students should not extend the Results section into the Discussion. • cite primary literature when writing their paper. (e.g. Student references Science Today, Medscape News Today, Press Releases, review articles, etc.) • properly format and/or cite their references. • meet the minimum length requirements. The final paper must be between 20-30 pages, not including appendices, tables and figures. The aim of the length indication in the instructions to students is not to set an arbitrary number of pages that need to be completed, but rather to provide guidance about the level of detail expected in an RLRA paper. Important Note: Every paper is sent for Plagiarism Review prior to being forwarded to Committee. All portions of the paper are subject to review, including the Appendices and Tables. Prior to submitting, it may be helpful to review the rules for proper citation and paraphrasing. An excellent resource is the Purdue Owl. Failing the Plagiarism Review will delay the Committee’s review of your paper until the issues are resolved.