lecture №13 powerpoint presentation skills for scientists

Lecture №13

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION SKILLS FOR SCIENTISTS

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

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

Make it Clear - StructureOUTLINE 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)

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

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!

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


Show bad

showing a lot of unreadable info “for effect” - bad!

if it can’t be read -- it’s a waste & it annoys audience


Show bad


GOOD

(some showmanship here)


GOOD

Use one of Jen’s figure slides color-coded parts, etc.

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

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!

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

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

Closure

• Summary of conclusions

• Zoom-out (relevance or application of your work)

• Next steps (if appropriate)

• Acknowledgements

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!

PART IITYPES OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

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

Outline For This Section

• Focus on 4 study designso Case-controlo Cohorto Randomized Control Trialo Review

• Narrative

• Systematic

• Meta Analysis

“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

Study Designs•Primary LiteratureoObservational

• Case-Control• Cohort

oExperimental• Randomized Control Trial

•Secondary LiteratureoNarrative (Subject/Journalistic) ReviewsoSystematic ReviewoMeta Analysis

Case-ControlPatients 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

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

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

Why did the authors match cases and controls by the type of service

mothers received?*

To re

duce

soci

oeco.

..

To e

xam

ine

whether

t..

To d

ecid

e if

chem

ical

...

All

of the

above

25% 25%25%25%

* -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

Cohort• Two groups compared over time

• One group with “exposure”, the other without the “exposure”

• Best used:owhen exposures can’t be controlledowhen outcomes occur infrequentlyowhen RCT is not ethical

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 =

When was there enough evidence from this study to show the link between smoking and

lung cancer?

1954

1966

1978

1991

25% 25%25%25%

1. 1954

2. 1966

3. 1978

4. 1991

Randomized Control Trial

• A treatment group is compared to a control group

• Group members are assigned randomly

• Best uses:– Drug therapies– Medical treatments

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 questiono The last paragraph of the introduction - research designo Study flow chart - pg. 196

25,000 UM students were recruited by emailHow many UM students ended up in the

intervention group?

1. 24,007

2. 2,407

3. 257

4. 107

5. 7

What percent of RealU participants had 30 days of no smoking at week 30?

100% 80

%60

%40

%20

% n

one

0% 0% 0%0%0%0%

1. 100%

2. 80%

3. 60%

4. 40%

5. 20%

6. none

30

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

Systematic Review

• Reproducible methods to find and select articles are included

• Should include both inclusion and exclusion criteria

• Why? Decrease author bias

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

It is recommended that HPV vaccine be given as a 3 shot series. How much do 3

doses of vaccine cost?

$500-$1000 $300-$500 $200-$300 $100-$200

0% 0%0%0%

1. $500-$1000

2. $300-$500

3. $200-$300

4. $100-$200

30

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

GROUP WORK

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

Article TypeWhat kind of question is it

good for?Strengths Weaknesses

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?

Thanks for your attention

• We will post these slides on the Student Portal on the Norris Medical Library website

• Contact us with questions– Joe Pozdol – [email protected]– Evans Whitaker – [email protected]

• Please complete evaluations!

lecture №13 powerpoint presentation skills for scientists

Documents