WRITING UP YOUR PROJECT REPORT

WRITING UP YOUR PROJECT REPORT

For systematic reviews the project must be written in the format of a scientific report and include the following sections, in the following order:

Title page

Contents Page

List of abbreviations (e.g. AF: Atrial Fibrillation)

Introduction: summary of the background with clear discussion of the clinical relevance leading to the rationale and aim of the project. It is very important that the rationale is clearly presented in this section, and this involves clear discussion of the clinical relevance and the gap in the literature.Aim, Objectives and Hypotheses: the aim is generally very similar to the title, and you must ensure that it matches the title. The aim is the main purpose, and should therefore link to the rationale that was discussed in the introduction. Objectives must flow from the aim, and generally refer to what is going to be measured, in order to meet the aim. Hypothesis(es): can be one or more, but should not be too many (generally no more than three); remember that each hypothesis should be tested by a statistical test, and the results of each test will determine if the relative hypothesis is confirmed or rejected: therefore avoid formulating the same hypothesis as a null and alternative together as this generates confusion for you and the reader.

Protocol/Methodology for systematic review should detailed description of the search methods. This should include:

Literature search

Discuss all strategies used to source, find and determine the suitability of the research articles included in the systematic review. A simple description of the search is not sufficient, and has to be supported by a rationale with appropriate referencing. Quality of each article in terms of the reliability and validity of the data collection methods, and findings have to be discussed.

Table 1. Keywords -should be linked to PICO for research question

Heading here Heading here Heading here Heading here

Text here Text here Text here Text here

Phrase searching Words within groups combined with AND/NOT/OR.

*Truncation

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting studies with rationale

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Text here Text here

PRISMA diagram -depicting the search to be included

Literature summary

Literature summary of selected studies

Citations Methods Results Comments on strengths and weakness of evidence

Text here Text here Text here Text here

Discussion: Summarize your results and explain clearly if the relative hypothesis is rejected or confirmed. Note that you should refer exactly to your hypothesis as it was first stated (if you stated a null hypothesis you should decide if that hypothesis is rejected or confirmed; same for alternative hypothesis). The discussion for a systematic review should focus on the selected articles within your literature summary table. Compare and contrast the evidence by discussing the results in relation to the findings of one article with the findings of other authors based on the quality of the evidence.

Conclusion/Recommendations: summarise and draw together the key points that you have made. Set the results obtained in the wider context and relate them to clinical practice where relevant. Where appropriate, propose working hypotheses for further testing.

Reference list: in alphabetical orderin line with Harvard referencing (see University Library website) matching exactly the in text citation (tip: update the list as soon as you make modifications in the text so you don't risk mismatches if, for example, you add a sentence with citation and the relative publication has not been added to the list).

right000Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine & Social Care

Undergraduate Major Project (MOD006294)

SID

Project Title

Submission Date

Supervisor 2nd Marker

Technical Research and Report Mark Scheme

Component Max. Mark Supervisor 2nd Marker

Planning & design

10

Data analysis

10

Data quality / presentation of results

30

Discussion/ Synthesis

30

Use of Literature

10

Standard of writing & overall presentation

10

Mark

100

AGREED FINAL MARK

100

Component (and elements) Comments Mark

PLANNING & DESIGN

Student punctual/ motivated/ attitude to work?

Research design appropriate?

Context adequately explained?

Question(s), aim(s) and objective(s) clearly stated?

Hypothesis(es) clearly stated? /10

DATA ANALYSIS

Sample size stated?

Patterns and trends (or lack of) identified?

Statistics used appropriately? /10

DATA QUALITY / PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Study area/ species appropriately described?

Variables / potential confounding variables

appropriately identified and described?

Methods appropriate for variables?

Presentation of results accurate and appropriate /30

DISCUSSION/ SYNTHESIS

Trends & patterns related to aims/ questions?

Critical evaluation of methods and/or theory.

Study limitations considered?

Summary, Recommendations, Conclusions /30

USE OF LITERATURE

Range/ depth adequate and suitable?

Synthesis proper/ adequate for report? /10

STANDARD OF WRITING AND OVERALL PRESENTATION

References cited & listed in an appropriate format?

Organisation logical/ headings/ contents/ abstract?

Clarity of descriptions and explanations?

Figures & tables numbered, with captions and cited?

Data variability (SE/ SD) indicated in text or graphics?

Statements supported by figures or tables?

/10